Comentários bíblicos

We have here, I. An account of the penman of this epistle, a character of the church, the blessings and privileges of that happy society, Jude 1:1,2. II. The occasion of writing this epistle, Jude 1:3. III. A character of evil and perverse men, who had already sprung up in that infant state of the church, and would be succeeded by others of the like evil spirit and temper in after-times, Jude 1:4. IV. A caution against hearkening to and following after such, from the severity of God towards the unbelieving murmuring Israelites at their coming out of Egypt, the angels that fell, the sin and punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jude 1:5-7. V. To these the apostle likens the seducers against whom he was warning them, and describes them at large, (Jude 1:8-10, inclusive). VI. Then (as specially suitable to his argument) he cites an ancient prophecy of Enoch foretelling and describing the future judgment, Jude 1:14,15. VII. He enlarges on the seducers' character, and guards against the offence which honest minds might be apt to take at the so early permission of such things, by showing that it was foretold long before that so it must be, Jude 1:16-19. VIII. Exhorts them to perseverance in the faith, fervency in prayer, watchfulness against falling from the love of God, and a lively hope of eternal life, Jude 1:20,21. IX. Directs them how to act towards the erroneous and scandalous, Jude 1:22,23. And, X. Closes with an admirable doxology in the Jude 1:24,25.

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.

Preface to the General Epistle of Jude

In the preface to the Epistle of James several things have been said relative to Jude the brother of James, the supposed author of this epistle; and to that preface the reader is requested to refer. What is farther necessary to be said on the author and the authenticity of this epistle, I shall take the liberty to borrow principally from Michaelis.

"If James and Jude, whom the evangelists call brothers of Jesus, were in fact only cousins or relations as some suppose, and were sons, not of Joseph, but of Alpheus, these two persons were the same as the two brothers James and Jude, who were apostles. And in this case Jude, the author of this epistle, was the same as the Apostle Jude, the brother of James who was son of Alpheus. On the other hand, if the James and the Jude, whom the evangelists call brothers of Jesus, were not the two brothers of this name who were apostles, but were the sons of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, we have then two different persons of the name of Jude, either of which might have written this epistle. And in this case we have to examine whether the epistle was written by an apostle of the name of Jude, or by Jude the brother-in-law of Christ.

"The author of the epistle himself has assumed neither the title of apostle of Jesus Christ, nor of brother of Jesus Christ, but calls himself only 'Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.' Now, as the author distinguishes himself by the title 'brother of James,' and this was a common name among the Jews, he undoubtedly meant some eminent person of this name, who was well known at the time when he wrote, or the title 'brother of James' would have been no mark of distinction. We may infer, therefore, that the author of this epistle was the brother, either of the Apostle James the son of Alpheus, or of James, named the brother of Jesus, or of both, if they were one and the same person.

"The first question, therefore, to be asked is, Was the author of this epistle the Apostle Jude? or was he brother of James, the son of Alpheus? Now, I have already observed, that this question must be answered in the affirmative if James and Jude who were called brothers of Jesus, were the same as the two brothers James and Jude who were apostles. And it may be answered in the affirmative, even if they were different persons, for Jude, the author of this epistle, had in either case a brother of the name of James, and therefore might in either case call himself Jude the brother of James. I say the question may be answered in the affirmative, even if the Apostle Jude was a different person from Jude, called the brother of James. But whether it ought in this case to be answered in the affirmative, is another matter; and I really believe that it ought not: for if the Jude who wrote this epistle had been himself an apostle, and brother of an apostle, he would hardly have called himself, in an epistle written to Christians, simply 'Jude, the brother of James' without adding the title apostle. It is true that the Apostle Jude, who was brother of James, is called by St. Luke Ιουδας Ιακωβου; but St. Luke gives him this title merely to distinguish him from another apostle of this name, who was called Iscariot. Now the author of this epistle could have no motive for distinguishing himself from Judas Iscariot, who had hanged himself many years before this epistle was written. The name of Jude was very common among the Jews; and therefore the author of this epistle wished to distinguish himself from other persons who were so called. But James was likewise a very common name, and therefore if the author had been an apostle he surely would have preferred an appellation which would have removed all doubts to an appellation which left it at least uncertain whether he was an apostle or not; I grant that the omission of this title does not necessarily prove that the author of this epistle was not an apostle, for Paul has omitted it in four of his epistles: in the Epistle to the Philippians, in both Epistles to the Thessalonians, and in that to Philemon. But St. Paul was sufficiently known without this title, whereas the author of the epistle in question felt the necessity of a distinguishing appellation, as appears from the very title which he has given himself of 'brother of James.' Besides, at the time when this epistle was written, only one apostle of the name of James was then alive; for the elder James, the son of Zebedee, had been beheaded many years before. If then the author of this epistle had only given to his brother James the title of apostle, he would thus likewise have clearly ascertained who he himself was. But since he has no more given to his brother than to himself the title of apostle, I think it highly probable that neither of them were apostles.

"The next question to be asked, therefore, is, Was the Jude, who wrote this epistle, the same person as the Jude whom the evangelists call brother of Jesus? and who, according to the opinion which I think the most defensible, was in this sense brother of Jesus, that he was son of Joseph by a former wife, and therefore not his own brother, but only brother-in-law of Jesus. Now, that this epistle was written by a person of this description, appears to me highly probable; and on this supposition we may assign the reason why the author called himself 'brother of James;' for, if he was the brother-in-law of Jesus, his brother James was the person who, during so many years, had presided over the Church at Jerusalem, was well known both to Jews and Christians, and appears to have been more celebrated than either of the apostles called James. It will be objected, perhaps, that the very same reasons which I have alleged, to show that an apostle of the name of Jude would have assumed his proper title, will likewise show that a person who was called brother of Jesus would have done the same, and styled himself brother of Jesus. To this I answer, that if he was the son of Joseph, not by Mary but by a former wife, and Jude believed in the immaculate conception, he must have been sensible that though to all outward appearance he was brother-in-law to Jesus, since his own father was the husband of Jesus' mother, yet in reality he was no relation of Jesus. On the other hand, if Jude, called the brother of Jesus, was the son of Joseph, not by a former wife but by Mary, as Herder asserts, I do not see how the preceding objection can be answered; for if Jesus and Jude had the same mother, Jude might without the least impropriety, have styled himself 'brother of Jesus,' or 'brother of the Lord;' and this would have been a much more remarkable and distinguishing title than that of brother of James. A third question still remains to be asked on this subject. The apostle whom St. Luke calls Jude is called Thaddaeus by St. Matthew and St. Mark, as I have already observed. But the apostle of the Syrians, who first preached the Gospel at Edessa, and founded a Church there, was named Thaddaeus or Adaeus. It may be asked, therefore, whether the author of this epistle was Thaddaeus, the apostle of the Syrians? But the answer is decisive: the old Syriac version does not contain this epistle; consequently it is highly probable that Adai or Adaeus was not the author, for an epistle written by the great apostle of the Syrians would surely have been received into the canon of the Syrian Church."

The most accurate critics have been unable to determine the time when, and the persons to whom, this epistle was written; so that much concerning these points, as well as the author of the epistle, must remain undecided.

"I am really unable to determine," says Michaelis, "who the persons were to whom this epistle was sent; for no traces are to be discovered in it which enable us to form the least judgment on this subject; and the address with which this epistle commences is so indeterminate, that there is hardly any Christian community where Greek was spoken, which might not be denoted by it. Though this epistle has a very great similarity to the Second Epistle of Peter, it cannot have been sent to the same persons, namely, the Christians who resided in Pontus, etc., because no mention is made of them in this epistle. Nor can it have been sent to the Christians of Syria and Assyria, where Jude preached the Gospel, if he be the same person as the apostle of the Syrians; for in this case the epistle would not have been written in Greek, but in Syriac or Chaldee, and would certainly have been received into the old Syriac version.

"With respect to the date of this epistle, all that I am able to assert is, that it was written after the Second Epistle of Peter; but how many years after, whether between 64 and 66, as Lardner supposes, or between 70 and 75, as Beausobre and L'Enfant believe; or, according to Dodwell and Cave, in 71 or 72, or so late as the year 90, as is the opinion of Mill, I confess I am unable to determine, at least from any certain data. The expression, 'in the last time,' which occurs Jde 1:18, as well as in 2 Peter 3:3, is too indeterminate to warrant any conclusion respecting the date of this epistle; for though, on the one hand, it may refer to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, it may, on the other hand, refer to a later period, and denote the close of the apostolic age; for in the First Epistle of St. John a similar expression occurs, which must be taken in this latter sense. The inference, therefore, that the Epistle of St. Jude was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which some commentators have deduced from the above-mentioned expression, on the supposition that it alluded to that event then approaching, is very precarious, because it is drawn from premises which are themselves uncertain. However, there is some reason to believe, on other grounds, that this epistle was not written after the destruction of Jerusalem; for, as the author has mentioned, Jde 1:5-8, several well known instances of God's justice in punishing sinners, which Peter had already quoted in his second epistle to the same purpose, he would probably, if Jerusalem had been already destroyed at the time he wrote, have not neglected to add to his other examples this most remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, especially as Christ himself had foretold it.

"Lardner, indeed, though he admits the similarity of the two epistles, still thinks it a matter of doubt whether St. Jude had ever seen the Second Epistle of St. Peter; his reason is, that 'if St. Jude had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, he would have forborne to write.'

"To this argument I answer:

1. If the Epistle of St. Jude was inspired by the Holy Ghost, as Lardner admits, the Holy Ghost certainly knew, while he was dictating the epistle to St. Jude, that an epistle of St. Peter, of a like import, already existed. And if the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding this knowledge, still thought that an epistle of St. Jude was not unnecessary; why shall we suppose that St. Jude himself would have been prevented writing by the same knowledge?

"2. The Second Epistle of St. Peter was addressed to the inhabitants of some particular countries; but the address of St. Jude's is general: St. Jude therefore might think it necessary to repeat for general use what St. Peter had written only to certain communities.

"3. The Epistle of St. Jude is not a bare copy of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, for in the former, not only several thoughts are more completely unravelled than in the latter, but several additions are made to what St. Peter had said; for instance Jde 1:4, Jde 1:5, Jde 1:9, Jde 1:16.

"Eusebius, in his catalogue of the books of the New Testament, places the Epistle of St. Jude among the αντιλεγομενα, contradicted or apocryphal books, in company with the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the Second and Third of John.

"But Origen, who lived in the third century, though he speaks in dubious terms of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, has several times quoted the Epistle of St. Jude, and has spoken of it as an epistle on which he entertained no doubt. In his commentary on St. Matthew, when he comes to Matthew 13:55, where James, Joses, Simon, and Jude are mentioned; he says Jude wrote an epistle of few lines indeed, but full of the powerful words of the heavenly grace, who at the beginning says, 'Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.' This is a very clear and unequivocal declaration of Origen's opinion; and it is the more remarkable because he says nothing of the Epistle of St. James, though the passage, Matthew 13:55, afforded him as good an opportunity of speaking of this epistle, as it did of the Epistle of St. Jude. Nay, Origen carries his veneration for the Epistle of Jude so far that, in his treatise De Principiis, lib. iii. cap. 2, he quotes an apocryphal book, called the Assumption of Moses, as a work of authority; because a passage from this book had been quoted by St. Jude. In one instance, however, in his commentary on St. Matthew, Origen speaks in less positive terms, for there he says, 'If any one receive the Epistle of St. Jude,' etc. Tertullian, in whose works Lardner could discover no quotation from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, describes the Epistle of St. Jude as the work of an apostle; for in his treatise De cultu faeminarum, chap. 3, he says, 'Hence it is that Enoch is quoted by the Apostle Jude.'

"Clement of Alexandria, in whose works likewise Lardner could find no quotation from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, has three times quoted the Epistle of St. Jude without expressing any doubt whatever. It appears, then, that the three ancient fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, as far as we may judge from their writings which are now extant, preferred the Epistle of St. Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter. However, I think it not impossible that if all the writings of these authors were now extant, passages might be found in them which would turn the scale in favor of the latter; and it may be owing to mere accident that in those parts of their works which have descended to us, more passages in which they speak decidedly of St. Jude are to be found, than such as are favorable to the Second Epistle of St. Peter. For I really cannot comprehend how any impartial man who has to choose between these two epistles, which are very similar to each other, can prefer the former to the latter, or receive the Epistle of St. Jude, the contents of which labor under great difficulties, and at the same time reject, or even consider as dubious, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the contents of which labor under no such difficulties.

"But it is much more difficult to explain Jde 1:9, in which the Archangel Michael is said to have disputed with the devil about the body of Moses. The history of this dispute, which has the appearance of a Jewish fable, it is not at present very easy to discover; because the book from which it is supposed to have been taken by the author of this epistle is no longer extant; but I will here put together such scattered accounts of it as I have been able to collect.

"Origen found in a Jewish Greek book called the Assumption of Moses, which was extant in his time, this very story related concerning the dispute of the Archangel Michael with the devil about the body of Moses. And from a comparison of the relation in his book with St. Jude's quotation, he was thoroughly persuaded that it was the book from which St. Jude quoted. This he asserts without the least hesitation; and in consequence of this persuasion he himself has quoted the Assumption of Moses as a work of authority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the devil. But as he quoted it merely for this purpose, he has given us only an imperfect account of what this book contained, relative to the dispute about the body of Moses. One circumstance, however, he has mentioned, which is not found in the Epistle of St. Jude, viz., that Michael reproached the devil with having possessed the serpent that seduced Eve. In what manner this circumstance is connected with the dispute about the body of Moses, will appear from the following consideration: -

"The Jews imagined the person of Moses was so holy that God could find no reason for permitting him to die; and that nothing but the sin committed by Adam and Eve in paradise, which brought death into the world, was the cause why Moses did not live for ever. The same notions they entertained of some other very holy persons; for instance, of Isaiah, who they say was delivered to the angel of death merely on account of the sins of our first parents, though he himself did not deserve to die. Now, in the dispute between Michael and the devil about Moses, the devil was the accuser, and demanded the death of Moses. Michael therefore replied to him that he himself was the cause of that sin, which alone could occasion the death of Moses. How very little such notions as these agree, either with the Christian theology, or with Moses' own writings, it is unnecessary for me to declare. Besides the account given by Origen, there is a passage in the works of Ecumenius, which likewise contains a part of the story related in the Assumption of Moses, and which explains the reason of the dispute which St. Jude has mentioned concerning Moses' body. According to this passage, Michael was employed in burying Moses; but the devil endeavored to prevent it by saying that he had murdered an Egyptian, and was therefore unworthy an honorable burial. Hence it appears that some modern writers are mistaken, who have imagined that in the ancient narrative the dispute was said to have arisen from an attempt of the devil to reveal to the Jews the burial place of Moses, and to incite them to an idolatrous worship of his body.

"There is still extant a Jewish book, written in Hebrew, and intitled פטירת משה that is, 'The Death of Moses,' which some critics, especially De La Rue, supposed to be the same work as that which Origen saw in Greek. Now if it were this Hebrew book, intitled 'Phetirath Mosheh,' it would throw a great light on our present inquiry; but I have carefully examined it, and can assert that it is a modern work, and that its contents are not the same as those of the Greek book quoted by Origen. Of the Phetirath Mosheh we have two editions, which contain very different texts; the one was printed at Constantinople in 1518, and reprinted at Venice in 1544 and 1605, the other was published from a manuscript by Gilbert Gaulmyn, who added a translation of both texts, with notes."

To show that neither St. Jude, nor any inspired writer, nor indeed any person in his sober senses, could quote or in any way accredit such stuff and nonsense, I shall give the substance of this most ridiculous legend as extracted by Michaelis; for as to the Phetirath Mosheh, I have never seen it.

"Moses requests of God, under various pretences, either that he may not die at all, or at least that he may not die before he comes into Palestine. This request he makes in so froward and petulant a manner as is highly unbecoming, not only a great prophet, but even any man who has expectations of a better life after this. In short, Moses is here represented in the light of a despicable Jew begging for a continuance of life, and devoid both of Christian faith and heathen courage; and it is therefore not improbable that the inventor of this fable made himself the model after which he formed the character of Moses. God argues on the contrary with great patience and forbearance, and replies to what Moses had alleged relative to the merit of his own good works. Farther, it is God who says to Moses that he must die on account of the sin of Adam; to which Moses answers, that he ought to be excepted, because he was superior in merit to Adam, Abraham, Isaac, etc. In the meantime Samael, that is, the angel of death, whom the Jews describe as the chief of the devils rejoices at the approaching death of Moses: this is observed by Michael, who says to him, 'Thou wicked wretch, I grieve, and thou laughest.' Moses, after his request had been repeatedly refused, invokes heaven and earth, and all creatures around him to intercede in his behalf. Joshua attempts to pray for him, but the devil stops Joshua's mouth, and represents to him, really in scriptural style, the impropriety of such a prayer. The elders of the people, and with them all the children of Israel, then offered to intercede for Moses; but their mouths are likewise stopped by a million eight hundred and forty thousand devils, which, on a moderate calculation, make three devils to one man. After this, God commands the angel Gabriel to fetch the soul of Moses; but Gabriel excuses himself, saying, that Moses was too strong for him: Michael receives the same order, and excuses himself in the same manner, or, as other accounts say, under pretense that he had been the instructer of Moses, and therefore could not bear to see him die. But this latter excuse, according to the Phetirath Mosheh, was made by Zinghiel, the third angel who received this command. Samael, that is, the devil, then offers his services; but God asks him how he would take hold of Moses, whether by his mouth, or by his hands, or by his feet, saying, that every part of Moses was too holy for him to touch. The devil, however, insists on bringing the soul of Moses; yet he does not accuse him, for, on the contrary, he prizes him higher than Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. The devil then approaches towards Moses, to execute this voluntary commission; but as soon as he sees the shining countenance of Moses, he is seized with a violent pain, like that of a woman in labor: Moses, instead of using the oriental salutation, 'Peace be with thee,' says to him, in the words of Isaiah, (for in this work Moses frequently quotes Isaiah and the Psalms), 'There is no peace to the wicked.' The devil replies that he was come, by the order of God, to fetch his soul; but Moses deters him from the attempt by representing his own strength and holiness; and saying, 'Go, thou wicked wretch, I will not give thee my soul,' he affrights the devil in such a manner that he immediately retires. The devil then returns to God, and relates what had passed, and receives an order to go a second time; the devil answers that he would go everywhere God commanded him, even into hell, and into fire, but not to Moses. This remonstrance is, however, of no avail, and he is obliged to go back again; but Moses, who sees him coming with a drawn sword, meets him with his miraculous rod, and gives him such a blow with it that the devil is glad to escape. Lastly, God himself comes; and Moses, having then no farther hopes, requests only that his soul may not be taken out of his body by the devil. This request is granted him; Zinghiel, Gabriel, and Michael then lay him on a bed, and the soul of Moses begins to dispute with God, and objects to its being taken out of a body which was so pure and holy that no fly dared to settle on it; but God kisses Moses, and with that kiss extracts his soul from his body. Upon this God utters a heavy lamentation; and thus the story in the Phetirath ends, without any mention of a dispute about the burial of Moses' body. This last scene, therefore, which was contained in the Greek book seen by Origen, is wanting in the Hebrew. But in both of these works Michael, as well as the devil, expresses the same sentiments in respect to Moses: in both works the same spirit prevails; and the concluding scene, which was contained in the Greek book, is nothing more than a continuation of the same story which is contained in the Hebrew."

Had Jude quoted a work like the above, it would have argued no inspiration, and little common sense; and the man who could have quoted it must have done it with approbation, and in that case his own composition would have been of a similar stamp. But nothing can be more dissimilar than the Epistle of Jude and the Phetirath Mosheh: the former contains nothing but manly sense, expressed in pure, energetic, and often sublime language, and accompanied, most evidently, with the deepest reverence for God; while the latter is despicable in every point of view, even considered as the work of a filthy dreamer, or as the most superannuated of old wives' fables.

"Lastly," says Michaelis, "besides the quotation which St. Jude has made in the 9th verse relative to the dispute between Michael and the devil, he has another quotation, Jde 1:14, Jde 1:15, likewise from an apocryphal book called the 'Prophecies of Enoch;' or, if not from any written book, from oral tradition. Now, should it be granted that Enoch was a prophet, though it is not certain that he was, yet as none of his prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament no one could possibly know what they were. It is manifest, therefore, that the book called the 'Prophecies of Enoch' was a mere Jewish forgery, and that too a very unfortunate one, since in all human probability the use of letters was unknown in the time of Enoch, and consequently he could not have left behind him any written prophecies. It is true that an inspired writer might have known, through the medium of Divine information, what Enoch had prophesied, without having recourse to any written work on this subject. But St. Jude, in the place where he speaks of Enoch's prophecies, does not speak of them as prophecies which had been made known to him by a particular revelation; on the contrary, he speaks of them in such a manner as implies that his readers were already acquainted with them."

From all the evidence before him, Michaelis concludes that the canonical authority of this epistle is extremely dubious; that its author is either unknown, or very uncertain; and he has even doubts that it is a forgery in the name of the Apostle Jude. Others have spoken of it in strains of unqualified commendation and praise, and think that its genuineness is established by the matters contained in it, which in every respect are suitable to the character of an inspired apostle of Christ. What has led to its discredit with many is the hasty conclusion that St. Jude quotes such a work as the Phetirath Mosheh; than which nothing can be more improbable, and perhaps nothing more false.

In almost all ages of the Church it has been assailed and defended; but it is at present generally received over the whole Christian world. It contains some very sublime and nervous passages, from the 10th to the 13th verse inclusive; the description of the false teachers is bold, happy, and energetic; the exhortation in Jde 1:20 and Jde 1:21, is both forcible and affectionate; and the doxology, in Jde 1:24 and Jde 1:25, is well adapted to the subject, and is peculiarly dignified and sublime.

I have done what I could, time and circumstances considered, to present the whole epistle to the reader in the clearest point of view; and now must commend him to God and the word of his grace, which is able to build him up, and give him an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Jesus.

The address and apostolical benediction, Jde 1:1, Jde 1:2. The reasons which induced Jude to write this epistle, to excite the Christians to contend for the true faith, and to beware of false teachers, lest, falling from their steadfastness, they should be destroyed after the example of backsliding Israel, the apostate angels, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jde 1:3-7. Of the false teachers, Jde 1:8. Of Michael disputing about the body of Moses, Jde 1:9. The false teachers particularly described: they are like brute beasts, going the way of Cain, run after the error of Balaam, and shall perish, as did Korah in his gainsaying, Jde 1:10, Jde 1:11. Are impure, unsteady, fierce, shameless, etc., 12, 13. How Enoch prophesied of such, Jde 1:14, Jde 1:15. They are farther described as murmurers and complainers, Jde 1:16. We should remember the cautions given unto us by the apostles who foretold of these men, Jde 1:17-19. We should build up ourselves on our most holy faith, Jde 1:20, Jde 1:21. How the Church of Christ should treat such, Jde 1:22, Jde 1:23. The apostle's farewell, and his doxology to God, Jde 1:24, Jde 1:25.

INTRODUCTION TO JUDE

That this epistle was written by Jude, one of the twelve apostles of Christ, and not by Jude the fifteenth bishop of Jerusalem, who lived in the time of Trojan, a little before Bar Cocab, the false Messiah, as Grotius thought, is evident from his being called, in the epistle itself, the brother of James, and which is confirmed by all copies; and its agreement with the second epistle of Peter shows it to have been written about the same time, and upon the same occasion. As to Jude's not calling himself an apostle, but a servant of Jesus Christ, it may be observed, that the latter is much the same with the former, and the Apostle Paul sometimes uses them both, as in Romans 1:1, Titus 1:1, and sometimes neither, as 1 Thessalonians 1:1, and sometimes only servant, as Jude does here, Philippians 1:1, though in some copies of the title of this epistle he is called "Jude the Apostle"; and as to Jude's making mention of the apostles as if he was later than they, and not of their number, Jde 1:17, it may be returned for answer to it, that the Apostle Peter expresses himself much in the same manner, 2 Peter 3:2, where some copies, instead of "us the apostles", read "your apostles", 2 Peter 3:2; moreover, Jude seems to cite a passage out of Peter, as Peter in the same chapter cites the Apostle Paul, which only shows agreement in their doctrine and writing; and at most it only follows from hence, that Jude wrote after some of the apostles, as Paul and Peter, who had foretold there would be mockers in the last time; and that Jude had lived to be a witness of the truth of what they had said; nor does he exclude himself from their number. And that this epistle is a genuine one appears from the majesty of its style, the truth of doctrine contained in it, and its agreement with the second epistle of Peter, and from the early reception of it in the churches. Eusebius (a) says, it was reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and was published in most churches; though he observes, that many of the ancients make no mention of it: but certain it is, that several of the ancient writers before him do make mention of it, and cite it as genuine, as Clemens Alexandrinus (b), Tertullian (c), and Origen (d): and as for the prophecy of Enoch, cited in this epistle, it is not taken out of an apocryphal book, that bears that name, for the apostle makes no mention of any writing of his, but of a prophecy; and had he cited it out of that book, as it was truth, it can no more prejudice the authority of this epistle, than the citations made by the Apostle Paul out of the Heathen poets can affect his epistles: and whereas there is an account also given in this epistle of a dispute about the body of Moses, nowhere else to be met with, supposing it to be understood of his real body, of which Jde 1:9; this can be no more an objection to the genuineness of this epistle, than the mention of Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses, by the Apostle Paul, 2 Timothy 3:8, is an objection to an epistle of his, whose names are not to be met with in other parts of Scripture; but were what were known by tradition, as might be the case here. The epistle is called "catholic", or "general", because it is not written to any particular person or church, but to the saints in general, and it may be to the same persons that Peter wrote his; see 1 Peter 1:1, and who seem to be chiefly the believing Jews; see Jde 1:5, though the Syriac version of Jde 1:1 reads, "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ"--ammel, "to the nations", or "Gentiles, called", &c. the design of the epistle to both is to exhort them to continue in the faith, and contend for it; and to describe false teachers, to point out their principles, practices, and dreadful end, that so they might shun and avoid them.

(a) Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 23. (b) Paedagog. l. 3. c. 8. p. 239. & Stromat. l. 3. p. 431. (c) De Cultu Foemin. l. 1. c. 3.((d) In Josh. Homil. 7. fol. 156. E. & Comment, in Matth. p. 223. Ed. Huet.

INTRODUCTION TO Jude 1

The writer of this epistle describes himself by his name, Jude; by his spiritual condition, "a servant of Christ"; and by his natural relation, "a brother of James"; and inscribes it to persons chosen of God, secured in Christ, and called by grace, Jde 1:1, whom he salutes, and wishes a multiplication of mercy, peace, and love unto, Jde 1:2, and then points at the subject matter of his epistle, "the common salvation"; and his view in writing it, which was to exhort them to contend earnestly for, the Gospel; which exhortation was necessary, since some reprobate and wicked men, abusers of the grace of God, and blasphemers of the person of Christ, had got in among them, Jde 1:3, and in order to deter them from following their pernicious ways, he lays before them various instances of divine vengeance on sinners; as the Israelites, whom God delivered out of Egypt, and yet destroyed them for their unbelief; the angels, who not content with their first estate, forsook their habitation, and are reserved in chains of darkness to the day of judgment; and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, and the adjacent cities, who for their uncleanness suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, as an example to others, Jde 1:5, in like manner, the apostle observes, these false teachers, who were filthy dreamers, defiled themselves with such sins, and also despised and spoke evil of civil magistrates, Jde 1:8, which sin of theirs is aggravated by Michael the archangel not railing at the devil, in a contention with him about the body of Moses, but gently reproving him; by speaking evil of what they were ignorant of, and by their brutish sensuality, in corrupting: themselves in things they had natural knowledge of, Jde 1:9, and both their sin and punishment are exemplified in the cases of Cain, Balaam, and Korah; being guilty of hatred of the brethren, of covetousness, and of contradiction, Jde 1:11, and by various metaphors are set forth their intemperance, hypocrisy, instability, unfruitfulness, pride, wrath, and lust, for whom the blackest darkness is reserved for ever, Jde 1:12, the certainty of which is proved from an ancient prophecy of Enoch, concerning the coming of Christ to judgment, when vengeance will be taken on those men for their ungodly deeds and hard speeches, Jde 1:14, who are further described by their murmurs and complaints; by their pride, respect of persons, and covetousness; by their scoffs, and walking after their own lusts, as had been foretold by the apostles of Christ; by separating themselves from the saints, and by their sensuality, and not having the Spirit of God, Jde 1:17, and the apostle having thus at large described these false teachers, by reason of whom the saints were in danger, directs them to the use of means by which they might be secured from them; such as building themselves up in their most holy faith, praying in the holy Ghost, keeping themselves in the love of God, and looking for the mercy of Christ unto eternal life, Jde 1:20, and he teaches them not only to be concerned for themselves, but for others also, who were in danger from these deceivers; to deal with some in a tender and compassionate way, with others more roughly, expressing an hatred to a filthy conversation, Jde 1:22, and then the epistle is concluded with a doxology, or an ascription of glory to the only wise God our Saviour, who is able to keep his people from falling into such pernicious principles and practices, and to present them faultless before his glorious presence with exceeding joy, Jde 1:24

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.

The Epistle of St. Jude.

BY

THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.

I. The Author.—Whatever may be our opinion with regard to 2 Peter, sober criticism requires us to believe that this Epistle was written by the man whose name it bears. To suppose that Jude is an assumed name is gratuitous. It remains to determine who the Jude is who addresses us.

He tells us that he is a “servant of Jesus Christ” and “brother of James.” Had he been an Apostle he would probably have said so. (Comp. Romans 1:1; Titus 1:1; 2Peter 1:1.) Had he been an Apostle he would not have claimed attention by calling himself “the brother of James,” when he possessed so very much stronger a claim. The fact that (Jude 1:17) the writer appeals to the words of Apostles proves nothing; an Apostle might do so. But at least such an appeal is more natural in one who is not an Apostle: there being no reason why he should keep his Apostleship in the background if he possessed it. Our Jude, then, is the Judas of Matthew 13:55, and the Juda of Mark 6:3; not the Judas of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, where “brother of James” should more probably be “son of James.” The author of this Epistle is rightly described as the brother of James, “brother” being expressed in the Greek. The James indicated is James “the Just,” the brother of the Lord, and first Bishop of Jerusalem, who, though not an Apostle, was nevertheless a person of such dignity as quite to account for this writer thinking it worth while to mention his near relationship to him. The present question is mixed up with the vexed question as to the brethren of our Lord. The view here taken is that they were not the sons of Alphæus—i.e., cousins—but in some real sense brethren: either the children of Joseph and Mary, or of Joseph by a former wife, or by a levirate marriage, or by adoption. Which of these four alternatives is the right one will probably never be determined. Jerome’s theory, that they were our Lord’s cousins, children of Alphæus, is contradicted by John 7:5. (See Note there and on Matthew 12:46.) It owes its prevalence in the West mainly to Jerome’s influence. The identification of James the Lord’s brother with James the son of Alphæus, which it involves, has never prevailed in the Eastern Church. Our author, then, together with his better known brother, James, were in some sense our Lord’s “brethren,” and not Apostles. If it be asked, Would not Jude in this case have appealed to his relationship to Christ rather than to his relationship to James? we may securely answer “No.” As the author of the Adumbrationes centuries ago remarked, religious feeling would deter him, as it did his brother James in his Epistle, from mentioning this fact. The Ascension had altered all Christ’s human relationships, and His brethren would shrink from claiming kinship after the flesh with His glorified Body. This conjecture is supported by facts. Nowhere in primitive Christian literature is any authority claimed or attributed on the basis of nearness of kin to the Redeemer. He Himself had taught Christians that the lowliest among them might rise above the closest of such earthly ties (Luke 11:27-28); to be spiritually “the servant of Jesus Christ” was much more than being His actual brother.

Of this Jude very little is known. Unless he was an exception to the statement in John 7:5 (of which there is no intimation), he did not at first believe on Christ, but joined the Apostles after the convincing fact of the Resurrection (Acts 1:14). That, like his brothers (see Note on 1Corinthians 9:5), he was married appears from Hegesippus, who tells us (Eus. H. E., III. xx.) that two grandsons of Jude were brought before Domitian as descendants of a royal house, and therefore dangerous persons; but on their proving their poverty, and explaining that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world, they were contemptuously dismissed. This story almost implies that the relationship to Christ was very close; for Hegesippus remarks, by way of explanation, that Domitian was afraid of Christ, just as Herod was. Statements of St. Jude’s preaching in various parts of the world rest upon late and untrustworthy evidence. That he was an Evangelist, is implied in his writing this Epistle; but nothing is known respecting his labours.

II. Authenticity.—The authenticity of the Epistle has been questioned by some from very early times, but without sufficient reason. The evidence against it is mainly this. External.—The Epistle is not contained in the Peschito or ancient Syriac version; Eusebius classes it among the disputed books (III. xxv. 3; II. xxiii. 25); Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have rejected it; few references to it are found in early writers. Internal.—It cites apocryphal books; has a suspicious relationship to Romans and 2 Peter; is difficult in style. Against this we may urge that Ephrem Syrus seems to have recognised it; the Muratorian Fragment (circ. A.D. 170) contains it; the old Latin version contains it; Tertullian (De Cult. Fern. I. iii.) accepts it as genuine and Apostolic; Clement of Alexandria quotes it as Scripture (Strom. III. ii.; Paed. III. viii.); Origen, though he knew of doubts about it (Comm. on Matthew 22:23) fully accepted it (on Matthew 13:55; Matthew 18:10, et al.); Jerome (Scrip. Eccles. iv.) says that many rejected it because it quoted apocryphal books, but that it ought to be reckoned among the Scriptures: the Councils of Laodicea (circ. A.D 360) and of Hippo (A.D. 393) formally included it in the Canon. The doubts about it are very intelligible: it was not by an Apostle, and therefore seemed wanting in authority, and it quoted apocryphal works. Its brevity fully accounts for its not being often quoted. It is too insignificant to be a forgery; a forger would have said more, and would have selected some well-known name, and not that of one but little known, to give authority to his production. Respecting the apocryphal books quoted, see Notes on Jude 1:9; Jude 1:14 and the Excursus. The difficult style is natural enough in a Jew writing Greek well, but not with ease. As already stated in reference to 2 Peter, a theory that these two Epistles (2 Peter and Jude) are translations from Aramaic originals has recently been advocated (Did St. Peter write in Greek? by E. G. King, Cambridge, 1871). It would be presumption on the part of one who is ignorant of Hebrew to pronounce an opinion on the arguments used; but the number of them seems to be insufficient. Mere internal evidence of this kind ought to be very strong to counterbalance the entire absence of external evidence. Jerome would certainly give information on this point, if he possessed any, when he makes his own suggestion that St. Peter used different “interpreters” to write his two Epistles. (See Note on 2Peter 2:17.)

III. The Place and Time.—As to the place we have no evidence, either external or internal. The Epistle contains some indications of time. (1) The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and consequent ruin of the Jewish nation is not mentioned among the instances of divine vengeance (Jude 1:5-7) is a strong reason for believing that the Epistle was written before A.D. 70. (2) The fact that such libertines as are here described are allowed to remain members of the Christian community points to a time when Church discipline is in its very infancy. The evils are very similar to those which St. Paul has to condemn in the Church of Corinth (1Corinthians 5:1-2; 1Corinthians 6:8-18; 1Corinthians 11:17-22). (3) It seems to be implied (Jude 1:17) that some of those addressed had heard Apostles. As to the bearing of the quotation from the Book of Enoch on this question, see Excursus.

IV. Object and Contents.—The object is plainly stated (Jude 1:3-4)—to urge his readers to contend earnestly for the faith which was being caricatured and denied by the libertinism and practical infidelity of certain members of the community. In what Church or Churches this evil prevailed we are not told; but it would be more likely to arise among converts from heathenism than from Judaism. The plan of the Epistle, short as it is, is evidently laid with considerable care; and the writer betrays a fondness for threefold divisions which is quite remarkable. It would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that wherever a group of three is possible he makes one. One or two of the triplets may be accidental, but the majority of them can hardly be so; and this fact may be worth remembering in discussing the question of priority between this Epistle and 2 Peter. There are ten (or possibly twelve) groups of three in this short Epistle of 25 verses: viz. (1 and 2) Jude 1:1; (3) Jude 1:2; (4) Jude 1:4; (5) Jude 1:5-7; (6) Jude 1:8; (7) Jude 1:11; (8) Jude 1:12-19; (9) Jude 1:19; (10) Jude 1:20-21; (11) Jude 1:22-23; (12) Jude 1:25. Of these (4) and (10) are perhaps doubtful; but there can be no question about the rest, although the last two are obscured in the English version, owing to our translators having followed a defective Greek text.

(1)INTRODUCTION.

(a)Three-fold address and three-fold greeting (Jude 1:1-2).

(b)Purpose of the Epistle (Jude 1:3).

(c)Occasion of the Epistle (Jude 1:4).

(2)WARNING AND DENUNCIATION.

(a)Three instances of God’s vengeance (Jude 1:5-7), and application of these three instances to the libertines who are now provoking God (Jude 1:8-10).

(b)Three examples of similar wickedness (Jude 1:11).

(c)Three-fold description corresponding to these three examples (Jude 1:12-15; Jude 1:16-18; Jude 1:19).

(3)EXHORTATION—

(a)To strengthen themselves in the faith by prayer, godliness, and hope (Jude 1:20-21).

(b)To treat these libertines with discrimination, making three classes (Jude 1:22-23).

(c)Concluding doxology (Jude 1:24-25).

V. The relation of Jude to 2 Peter.—The similarity both in substance and wording between a considerable portion of these two Epistles is so great that only two alternatives are possible; either one has borrowed from the other, or both have borrowed from a common source. The second alternative is rarely if ever advocated; it does not explain the facts very satisfactorily, and critics are agreed in rejecting it. But here agreement ends. On the further question, as to which writer is prior, there is very great diversity of opinion. One thing, therefore, is certain; that whichever writer has borrowed, he is no ordinary borrower. He knows how to assimilate foreign material so as to make it thoroughly his own. He remains original even while he appropriates the words and thoughts of another. He controls them; not they him. Were this not so, there would be little doubt about the matter. In any ordinary case of appropriation, if both the original and copy are forthcoming, critics do not doubt long as to which is the original. It is when the copy itself is a masterpiece, as in the case of Holbein’s Madonna, that criticism is baffled. Such would seem to be the case here. The present writer is free to confess his own uncertainty. A superficial acquaintance with the subject inclined him to believe in the priority of Jude: further study disposes him to think that the balance is decidedly in favour of the priority of 2 Peter, although the balance is considerably short of proof. The question cannot be kept distinct from that of the authenticity of St. Peter. Every argument in favour of the authenticity of 2 Peter is something in favour of its priority, and vice versâ; although many arguments bear more upon one point than the other. If, then, the genuineness of 2 Peter is accepted as probable, this will add additional weight to the considerations now to be urged in favour of the priority of 2 Peter; and they in turn will strengthen the arguments for its genuineness.

This question as to the relation between these two Epistles seems to be one in which the old-fashioned view is not so far wrong after all. And some value may fairly be allowed to the old-fashioned arguments for it: (1) that the account of evil-doers in 2 Peter is in the main a prophecy, whereas St. Jude speaks of them as present; the inference being that St. Jude recognised in what he saw the mischief which St. Peter had foretold; and added weight to his own denunciations by framing them in the very words of the Apostle; (2) that St. Jude’s warning, “remember the words which were spoken before by the Apostles . . . how that they told you there shall be mockers in the last time walking after their own ungodly lusts” (Jude 1:7; Jude 1:18), is an obvious reference to St. Peter’s prediction, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts” (2Peter 3:3). Of course a forger, with St. Jude’s words before him, might frame his own words to fit them; but in that case we have still to account for St. Jude’s warning, “remember the words which were spoken before by the Apostles,” &c. They may refer to such passages as Acts 20:29; 2Timothy 3:1; or (as some who insist on “how that they told you,” or “used to tell you,” prefer) to warnings given orally by the Apostles; still 2Peter 3:3 is the most obvious reference.

No doubt it is antecedently more probable that a small Epistle should be republished with much additional matter, than that one-third of a longer Epistle should be republished with very little additional matter: but what has been said above about 2 Peter being a prophecy, of which St. Jude saw the fulfilment, is an answer to this. Besides which, we may urge that it is antecedently improbable that a forger should take so much from an Epistle that was not only known, but regarded with suspicion in some quarters, because of its quoting apocryphal books. That St. Jude is quoted by one or two writers who seem not to know or to reject 2 Peter (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) may be allowed some weight; but this could easily be accounted for, and in itself is not very convincing.

One argument used for the priority of Jude seems to the present writer to tell strongly for the priority of 2 Peter. It is this: that the evil-doers denounced by St. Jude are much more distinctly portrayed than those denounced in 2 Peter. We know from history that the errors indicated increased rapidly from the apostolic age onwards. The later writer, therefore, would have the clearer picture before his eyes. Would not the clearer description, then, be likely to be his? (See above on the False Teachers and Scoffers: Introduction to 2 Pet.) In connexion with this point it is worth considering whether the careful directions which St. Jude gives as to the way in which different classes of the ungodly men are to be treated does not point to a later stage of the evil (see Notes on Jude, Jude 1:22-23). Again, the rather fanciful arrangement into triplets, which prevails in St. Jude’s Epistle, looks more like a second writer working up old material, than a first writer working under no influence from a predecessor.

Of the numerous minute arguments drawn from the wording of parallel passages only one or two specimens can be given here: others are considered in the Notes. Jude 1:6 contains a telling piece of irony in the double use of “kept,” which is wanting in 2Peter 2:4; Jude 1:10 contains a striking antithesis, very epigrammatically stated, which is wanting in 2Peter 2:12; Jude 1:12-13 contains some fine similes, especially the one of “wandering stars,” which would have fitted the “false teachers” admirably; yet most of them are absent from 2 Peter. Would a writer who is quite willing to borrow anything that will serve his purpose (this is evident, whichever is the borrower) have wilfully rejected all these good things? If they are improvements added by St. Jude, all is natural enough. It is worth mentioning in conclusion, that the arguments urged for an Aramaic original tell decidedly in favour of the priority of 2 Peter.

While admitting, therefore, that the case is by no means proved, we may be content to retain the priority as well as the authenticity of 2 Peter, as at least the best working hypothesis.

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO JUDE.

ON THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

THE precise place in history to which this intensely interesting relic belongs is a riddle of which the answer is as yet only very partially known. But the results of investigations during the nineteenth century have shown that the attention paid to the Book of Enoch in the second, third, and fourth centuries was fully justified. It is strange that such a book should have been allowed to pass out of sight. The canonical Book of Revelation inspired Christians, just as the Book of Daniel inspired Jews, with a love of revelations, visions, and prophecies, which was at times insatiable, and which has produced a mass of literature of which we could spare a great deal in exchange for something more solid. Men were so busy divining the future that they forgot to record the present and the past.

And yet a book so eminently in harmony with this taste was suffered to perish. This is all the more strange because judgment, hell, and heaven are among the main subjects of the book, and the end of the world was precisely the favourite subject of speculation among Christians from the fourth to the tenth century. Moreover, there was the passage in Jude, to say nothing of notices in the Fathers, to keep the book from being forgotten. Perhaps the reason was that just the two data by which men expected to determine the approach of the end of the world—the downfall of Rome and the coming of Antichrist—are not hinted at in the Book of Enoch. Be this as it may, the fact remains that from the fourth to the eighteenth century the book was entirely lost in Western Europe. Some fragments preserved in Greek in the Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus (circ. A.D. 800) show that the book was known in Eastern Christendom much later than in the West; but after that we lose all trace of it. Early in the seventeenth century it was rumoured that an Ethiopic version of it existed in Abyssinia. These rumours ended in disappointment. But in 1773 James Bruce brought back from Abyssinia three MSS. of the Ethiopic version. Silvestre de Sacy published a Latin transation of some of the early chapters in 1800; and in 1821 Archbishop Lawrence published an English translation of the whole, followed by the Ethiopic text in 1838. Since then the study of the book has been almost confined to Germany, where Hofmann, Gfrörer, Lützelberger, Lücke, Dillmann, Ewald, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Weisse, Volkmar, and Philippi, have all contributed to the subject; Dillmann far the most. The results are anything but harmonious; but something has been ascertained on which reliance can be placed.

The Ethiopic is a translation from the Greek, and the Greek (of which only the portion preserved by Georgius Syncellus is known) is probably a translation from the Aramaic. A Hebrew Book of Enoch was in existence as late as the thirteenth century, but we have no certainty that it was identical with the existing work. A more secure ground for believing in an Aramaic original is the fact that many of the proper names come from Aramaic roots. The Ethiopic version is both redundant and defective: redundant in containing repetitions which can scarcely be intentional; defective inasmuch as not even all that Georgius Syncellus has preserved is contained in it. The repetitions may possibly be the result of unintelligent copying, different recensions being clumsily strung together.

All are agreed that the book is not all by one hand. In the main it probably is so; but the author seems to have incorporated portions of other works; and it is suspected that the volume, as thus formed, has since been interpolated. To distinguish the earlier fragments and the later additions from the main body of the work, and to assign dates to each, is the great problem that still remains to be worked out. Very wide differences of opinion exist on the subject, but there is considerable agreement in assigning the main body of the book to B.C. 150-110. Lücke at first believed that the book was composed after the Christian era; but in the second edition of his Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis (Bonn, 1852) he abandoned this view, and placed the first and last parts in the Maccabæan period, and assigned the central part—i.e., the parables—to about B.C. 40. Hofmann, Weisse, and Philippi have since taken up the theory of a post-Christian origin, but it has not met with much favour. Volkmar seems to stand alone in maintaining that the book was the work of disciples of the great Rabbi Akiba, and was written to incite people to join the standard of the impostor, Bar-Cochba, in his revolt against Hadrian, A.D. 132. Information on the subject for English readers is best derived from Lawrence’s translation and preliminary dissertation, the article by Westcott in the Dictionary of the Bible, and that by Lipsius in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, from which sources much of the above is taken. See also Westcott’s Introduction to the Gospels, p. 93.

The essentially Jewish character of the whole book is manifest, although it may contain Christian interpolations. There is no doctrine of the Trinity, and nothing distinctly Christian. Of the Incarnation, the name Jesus, the life on earth, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, of Baptism, and the Eucharist, there is not a trace. The Messiah is the Son of Man (passim), the Son of woman (Enoch 61:9), the Elect (passim), whom the Lord of spirits seats on the throne of His glory to judge “in the word of the name of the Lord of spirits” (Enoch 60:10, 11; 68:39); but he is not the Word, he is not God.

These facts suffice to show that the book as a whole is Jewish and not Christian. On the other hand, the absence of antagonism to Christianity seems to show that the book was not written after the Christian era. Volkmar’s theory, that it was written in the interests of the false Messiah, Bar-Cochba, is rendered at once improbable by the fact that constant reference to the Book of Enoch is made in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. This work was known to Origen, and perhaps to Tertullian, and therefore cannot be later than A.D. 150-200. But it was probably written before A.D. 135, i.e., before that obliteration of the very walls and name of Jerusalem which was the immediate result of Bar-Cochba’s revolt. The author, a Jewish Christian, attacks the idea that Jewish ceremonial is still binding; and is perpetually reminding the Jews that the Messiah is not only a King but a Priest, and a Priest to whom the Aaronic priesthood must resign. This idea does not at all suit the half century following Hadrian’s destruction of Jerusalem; for that event put an end to the danger of Jewish ceremonial overgrowing Christianity. Whereas before that event the danger of a relapse into Judaism was, for the church in Palestine, a very real one. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs may be placed A.D. 100-135; and consequently the Book of Enoch must be placed earlier still. (Comp. Dorner’s Person of Christ, 1, pp. 152, 417, 420.)

It is well worth while to read the whole of Lawrence’s translation. Those who do so cannot fail to be often struck with the dignity and beauty even of this translation of a translation. Not unfrequently they will come upon something which reminds them of 2 Peter or Jude. The resemblance is often of the faintest—a couple of words in altogether different context, or a similar thought very differently expressed. It would be strange if all these resemblances were purely accidental; and an opportunity of forming an opinion on this question is given in the following pages, where specimens of these resemblances are tabulated.

The impression which this fact conveys is that the writers of these Epistles, or at least one of them, was well acquainted with the Book of Enoch, and that it suggested sometimes a thought, sometimes a phrase to him. It is possible, however, that all three writers may have derived material from a common source. These questions can scarcely be settled finally until a Greek copy of the book comes to light, an event by no means to be despaired of in an age in which so many literary treasures have been recovered.

The book is evidently the work of a man of the most earnest convictions: one who believes in God and fears Him, and is appalled at the practical infidelity and utter godlessness which he finds around him. There are two things on which he is never tired of insisting: (1) that God’s rule extends everywhere, over men and angels no less than over winds and stars; (2) that this rule is a moral one, for He bounteously rewards righteousness and fearfully punishes sin. Nothing, therefore, could well be more in harmony with the spirit and purpose of St. Jude; and it ought not to surprise us that he makes use of such a work. Whether or no he was aware of the apocryphal nature of the book, we have no means of determining. Neither alternative need startle us—that he should have been mistaken on such a point, or should knowingly have quoted an uncanonical book. St. Paul was not afraid to quote heathen poets.

It may reassure us in any case to remember that, in spite of the quotation in St. Jude, the mind of Christ’s Church has never wavered as to the true nature of the Book of Enoch. It is one of the many eccentricities of Tertullian that he upholds its authority; but he is alone in doing so. His argument is so curious as to be worth summarising:—“I am quite aware that some reject the book, and that it is not in the Jewish canon. I suppose people think that it could never have survived the deluge. But might not Noah have heard and remembered it all? or have been inspired to repeat it, just as Ezra is believed to have restored the Jewish literature lost in the destruction of Jerusalem? Nothing must be rejected which really concerns us; and we read that every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired. The Jews reject it, as they reject other things, because it tells of Christ” (De Cultu Fem., I. iii.).

It is not quite certain whether Justin Martyr knew it or not. In Apol. II., v., he gives in few words an account of the fall of the angels, and the consequences of it, very similar to that in the Book of Enoch, 6-16. Justin and the author of the book may have got this from a common source; but, in any case, Justin’s accepting the account is no proof that he accepted the book as of any authority. Origen and Augustine distinctly mark it as apocryphal, and it is included in no list of the Scriptures, whether Jewish or Christian.

The question still remains—does St. Jude quote this book? More than one critic answers in the negative, maintaining that he merely quotes a traditional saying of Enoch, which the author of the Book of Enoch inserted. Of course this is possible; but, as the book was in existence when St. Jude wrote, was probably well known, and contains the passage quoted, the more reasonable view is that St. Jude quotes from the book.

JUDE.

TABULATED SPECIMENS OF PARALLELS BETWEEN THE BOOK OF ENOCH AND THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER AND THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE.

ENOCH.

2 PETER.

JUDE.

2. Behold, He comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked and reprove all the carnal, for every thing which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against Him.

Jude 1:14-15. Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

1:8. The splendour of the Godhead shall illuminate them.

2Peter 1:17. The excellent glory.

1:5. The earth is scorched up with fervid heat.

2Peter 3:10. The elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, the earth also.

4:4, 5. You calumniate [His] greatness; and malignant are the words in your polluted mouths against His majesty. Ye withered in heart, no peace shall be unto you.

2Peter 2:10. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Jude 1:8. Despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Jude 1:10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not.

Jude 1:12. Without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.

7:1, 2. It happened, after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other; Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

2Peter 2:4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned.

Jude 1:6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left then own habitation.

10:26. Then shall the children of the earth be righteous. (Comp. 1:5 : The earth shall rejoice; the righteous shall inhabit it, and the elect possess it.)

2Peter 3:13. We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14:9. Clouds and a mist invited me; agitated stars . . . pressed me forwards.

2Peter 2:17. Mists that are driven with the storm-wind.

Jude 1:12. Clouds they are without water.

Jude 1:13. Wandering stars.

15:7. Therefore I made not wives for you [angels], because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.

Jude 1:6. The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.

18:16. Therefore was He offended with them [the angels], and bound them, until the period of the consummation of their crimes in the secret year. (Comp. 16:2, 3 : I beheld . . . a desolate spot, prepared, and terrific. There too I beheld seven stars of heaven [angels] bound in it together. . . . These are those of the stars which have transgressed the commandment of the most high God; and are here bound, until the infinite number of the days of their crimes be completed. Comp. 87:2, 3.)

2Peter 2:4. If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.

Jude 1:6. He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

40:8. The merciful, the patient, the holy Michael.

Jude 1:9. Michael . . . durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

41:1. The sinners who denied the Lord of glory.

2Peter 2:1. Even denying the Lord that bought them.

Jude 1:4. Denying the only Lord, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

45:2. Sinners who deny the name of the Lord of spirits. (Comp. 47:11; 66:12.)

45:4, 5. I will change the face of heaven. . . . I will also change the face of the earth; will bless it; and cause those whom I have elected to dwell upon it.

2Peter 3:13. We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

53:8-10. All the waters, which are in the heavens and above them, shall be mixed together. The water which is above heaven shall be the agent; and the water which is under the earth shall be the recipient; and all shall be destroyed who dwell upon earth.

2Peter 3:5-6. By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth consisting out of water and through water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

58:4. Hitherto has existed the day of mercy; and He has been merciful and long-suffering towards all who dwell on the earth.

2Peter 3:9. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

66:6. The valley of the angels, who had been guilty of seduction, burned underneath its soil. 15. The waters will be changed, and become a fire which shall blaze for ever.

Jude 1:7. Sodom and Gomorrha . . . giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

68:39. Those who seduced them shall be bound with chains for ever.

2Peter 2:4. God spared not the angels that sinned, but . . . delivered them into chains of darkness.

Jude 1:6. The angels which kept not their first estate . . . He hath reserved in everlasting chains

82:4-6. I saw in a vision heaven purifying and snatched away. . . . I saw likewise the earth absorbed by a great abyss, and mountains suspended over mountains. Hills were sinking upon hills, lofty trees were gliding off from their trunks and were . . . sinking into the abyss.

2Peter 3:10. The heavens shall pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, the earth also; and shall the works thereof be found?

92:17, 18. The former heaven shall depart and pass away; a new heaven shall appear. . . . Afterwards likewise shall there be many weeks, which shall externally exist in goodness and righteousness. Neither shall sin be named there for ever.

2Peter 3:10. The heavens shall pass away. 13. We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

96:25. To them there shall be no peace; but they shall surely die suddenly.

2Peter 2:1. Shall bring upon themselves swift destruction.

97:1. Woe to them who act impiously, who laud and honour the word of falsehood.

Jude 1:11. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward.

102:7. You have been satiated with meat and drink, with human plunder and rapine, with sin, with the acquisition of wealth, and with the sight of good days.

2Peter 2:13. As they that count it pleasure to riot in the day-time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceiving while they feast with you.

Jude 1:12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they least with you, feeding themselves without fear. 16. Having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.

105:13, 14. Behold they committed crimes; laid aside their class, and intermingled with women. With them also they transgressed; married with them, and begot children. A great destruction therefore shall come upon the earth; a deluge, a great destruction, shall take place in one year.

2Peter 2:4-5. God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world . . . bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Jude 1:6. The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains.

The Epistle of Jude

This brief letter is assigned to the Judas of Matthew 13:55, one of the brethren of Jesus, and of James, the author of the catholic epistle. It is a hotly debated question whether Peter's second letter or Jude's epistle is the earlier, and, consequently, which writer drew upon the other. It is quite evident, either that the one used the other's epistle or that both drew from a common source. A satisfactory decision is impossible in the present state of the evidence. The matter which is common to the two epistles, besides various scattered resemblances, is principally in Jude 3-18; 2 Peter 1:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-18 (see Ezra Abbot, Expositor, 2d series, iii., 139).

Besides the resemblance to Second Peter, the epistle is marked by its apocryphal references, especially to the Book of Enoch (see notes on Jde 1:9, Jde 1:14). In style it is terse and picturesque. "It is Greek as learned by a foreigner, and partly from books, and it is mixed up with Hebrew phrases." It contains at least fifteen words not found elsewhere in the New Testament. Dean Alford says: "It is an impassioned invective, in which the writer heaps epithet on epithet, and image on image, and returns again and again to the licentious apostates against whom he warns the church, as though all language were insufficient to give an adequate idea of their profligacy, and of his own abhorrence of their perversion of the grace and doctrines of the Gospel."

List of Greek Words Used by Jude Only

ἀποδιορίζω to separate Jde 1:19 ἄπταιστος without falling Jde 1:24 γογγυστής murmurer Jde 1:16 δεῖγμα example Jde 1:7 ἐκπορνεύω to give over to fornication Jde 1:7 ἐνυπνιάζω to dream Jde 1:8 ἐπαγωνίζομαι earnestly contend Jde 1:3 ἐπαφρίζω to foam out Jde 1:13 μεμψίμοιρος complainer Jde 1:16 παρεισδύω to creep in unawares Jde 1:4 πλανήτης a wanderer Jde 1:13 σπιλάς rock Jde 1:12 ὑπέχω to suffer, undergo Jde 1:7 φθινοπωρινός autumnal Jde 1:12 φυσικῶς naturally Jde 1:10

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.