Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called.
1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James ] The question who the writer was who thus describes himself has been discussed in the Introduction. Here it will be enough to note (1) that the use of the term “servant” does not exclude a claim to Apostleship (Rom 1:1; Php 1:1); and (2) that it is the term used by the writer whom the author of this Epistle claims as his brother (Jas 1:1). This description of himself as “the brother of James” has no parallel in the New Testament. We might have expected “brother of the Lord,” but probably he shrank from what might have seemed the boastfulness of so describing himself, or felt, perhaps, that that title was now inseparably connected with James, the Bishop of Jerusalem (Gal 1:19). It may be inferred, without much risk of error, (1) that he wished, bearing so common a name, to distinguish himself from others, like Judas not Iscariot, of Joh 14:22, Luk 6:16, the Lebbus or Thaddus of Mat 10:3, Judas surnamed Barsabas (Act 15:22), and others.
to them that are sanctified by God the Father ] Literally, sanctified in God the Father, i.e. through union with Him, living in Him. Some of the better MSS., however, give “ beloved in God,” in which case the thought would be that they were the objects of the writer’s love, not “according to the flesh,” but with an emotion which had its source in God. So taken it would be analogous to the phrases “salute you much in the Lord” (1Co 16:19), or, “rejoice in the Lord” (Php 4:4).
and preserved in Jesus Christ ] The tense of the participle in the Greek implies a completed act continuing in its results. The word may be noted as specially characteristic of the later Epistles. We have it in 1Pe 1:4; 2Pe 2:4; 2Pe 2:9; 2Pe 2:17; 2Pe 3:7; eight times in 1 John; four times in Jude. In the sense in which it is used here, it is probably connected with the fact of the delay in the second Advent of the Lord, and was chosen to indicate that those who were waiting patiently for it were being kept or guarded by their union with Christ.
and called ] The idea runs through the whole of the New Testament. The word appears in Mat 20:16; Mat 22:14 as contrasted with “chosen” or “elect,” in Rom 1:1; Rom 1:6-7; Rom 8:28 as the sequel of a predetermining election. Each aspect of the word must be kept in mind.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ – If the view taken in the Introduction to the Epistle is correct, Jude sustained a near relation to the Lord Jesus, being, as James was, the Lords brother, Gal 1:19. The reasons why he did not advert to this fact here, as an appellation which would serve to designate him, and as showing his authority to address others in the manner in which he proposed to do in this Epistle, probably were,
(1)That the right to do this did not rest on his mere relationship to the Lord Jesus, but on the fact that he had called certain persons to be his apostles, and had authorized them to do it; and,
(2)That a reference to this relationship, as a ground of authority, might have created jealousies among the apostles themselves. We may learn from the fact that Jude merely calls himself the servant of the Lord Jesus, that is, a Christian,
(a)That this is a distinction more to be desired than, would be a mere natural relationship to the Saviour, and consequently.
(b)That it is a higher honor than any distinction arising from birth or family. Compare Mat 12:46-50.
And brother of James – See the introduction, Section 1.
To them that are sanctified by God the Father – To those who are holy, or who are saints. Compare the Rom 1:7 note; Phi 1:1 note. Though this title is general, it can hardly be doubted that he had some particular saints in his view, to wit, those who were exposed to the dangers to which he refers in the Epistle. See Introduction, Section 3. As the Epistle was probably sent to Christians residing in a certain place, it was not necessary to designate them more particularly, though it was often done. The Syriac version adds here: To the Gentiles who are called, beloved of God the Father, etc.
And preserved in Jesus Christ – See the notes, 1Pe 1:5. The meaning is, that they owed their preservation wholly to him; and if they were brought to everlasting life, it would be only by him. What the apostle here says of those to whom he wrote, is true of all Christians. They would all fall away and perish if it were not for the grace of God keeping them.
And called – Called to be saints. See Rom 1:7 note; Eph 4:1 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Jud 1:1-2
Jude to them that are sanctified.
The apostolic benediction
I. The apostolic benediction. St. Jude has given the blessing in a fuller form than any of his brethren, superadding the benefits of Christian love to the other subjects of the holy wish. Observe that in this benediction the apostles follow the same order as in the text–I mean that mercy or grace is always first. And we may well perceive the absolute necessity of this. Mercy must form to us the beginning of every blessing. Mercy therefore is the first object of our concern; mercy to forgive; to rescue from perishing; to raise to favour; and to render us at last, by its purifying influence, worthy of the friendship of that gracious Being who freely bestows it. It is here we find the only source of peace, which begins in our being reconciled to God; and the wisdom of its commencing there appears from the fact that the mind, with its many fears and hopes, has no ground whereon to rest but in union with God. Peace under the remembrance of sin, for sin is pardoned; under the visitations of adversity, for the paternal favour turns them all to present improvement and endless good; under the solemn views of the future world, for the judgment is to be an acquittal and eternity of blessedness to the children of God. The man who has this Divine tranquillity reigning in his soul will be eager to preserve the unity of kind affection with his brethren. He is in the best state for cultivating the fruits of Christian love. He cannot hold fellowship with the things above without drawing down the wisdom that is as peaceable and gentle as it is pure.
II. The limitations within which the benediction is here pronounced. The persons on whom exclusively it is pronounced are described by decided traits of character. Every one that hears the gospel is called. But it is not upon every one that the call produces its effect. As giving an abridged view of what is required in the way of evidence on this subject, the next qualification mentioned may safely be taken. For to be preserved in Christ Jesus denotes perseverance in every excellence. It describes at once constancy of religious profession and devotedness of religious obedience, trust in the author of our salvation, and endeavour to resemble Him. Now, consider for what use these views of character are here detailed. They are of use for determining on whom the apostolical benediction was pronounced. Freely as the blessings of the gospel are offered, never is the offer of them to conceal the great distinctions of moral truth and duty. Benedictions are to descend on ground fitted to receive them; otherwise there will spring up no real good. Let no man, therefore, soothe himself with the promises of mercy who is conscious that, instead of being sanctified under the influence of the gospel, he is living in the wilful practice of sin. (W. Muir, D. D.)
The salutation
I. Characteristics of true believers. These are three, and they include all which pertain to godliness.
1. A Divine act in the soul. The idea of consecration is here intended.
2. Divine guardianship over the soul. We are preserved in the matter of possession–what God has given us, and in the matter of condition–what God has made us.
3. Divine leadership before the soul. This is the call to service, activity, and suffering.
II. The blessings of true believers.
1. Gods mercy to maintain their purity. The very idea of weakness and imperfection is here implied. By the constant supply of grace the saints are kept from falling.
2. Gods peace to maintain their preservation. Commotion, strife, perturbation of soul, invariably lead to loss and disaster.
3. Gods love to inspire their life. (T. Davies, M. A.)
A servant of Christ
1. They who undertake any public employment for Christ must receive a call from Him to be His servants, if with comfort to themselves or benefit to others they will go about His work.
2. Alliance in faith, spiritual relation to Christ, is much dearer and nearer than alliance in flesh.
3. There is a peculiar excellency and worth in the title of servant.
(1) Christ much honours us.
(2) He will assist us in our works.
(3) He will preserve us.
(4) He will provide for us.
(5) He will reward us.
4. We owe to God the duty and demeanour of servants. To serve Him–
(1) Solely.
(2) Obediently.
(3) Heartily.
(4) Cheerfully.
(5) Perpetually.
5. They who expect to persuade others to serve Christ must be servants themselves. (W. Jenkyn, M. A.)
Grace and sanctification
1. Grace whereby we are changed, much excels grace whereby we are only curbed.
2. This sanctification changes not the substance and faculties of soul and body, but only the corruption, disorder, and sinfulness thereof.
3. The people of God even in this life are saints.
4. Holiness cannot be hid.
5. How great the change that is wrought upon a person when God comes with sanctifying grace!
6. The holiness of a sanctified person is not purely negative. We are not content with half happiness, why should we be with half holiness?
7. Sanctification admits no coalition between the new and the old man.
8. As a sanctified person allows no mixtures with grace, so he puts no limits to grace.
9. Outside, superstitious mortification is but a shadow of the true.
10. The Lord estimates His people by the better part, their bent and strain, not their defects.
11. How causelessly the world complains of those who are truly sanctified! (W. Jenkyn, M. A.)
Sanctification and preservation of the saints
All former blessings without this is to small purpose, in that God not only calleth us, but sanctifieth us, and not only so, but also reserveth us in Christ Jesus. This maketh up the measure of our joy till the bushel run over. So Paul told the Corinthians (1Co 1:8). This is the anchor of our hope, that God preserveth us for ever. Our life is like a ship in the sea, beaten with wind, tossed with waves, and were it not that Christ is in this ship, we were like to sink. (S. Otes.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5573.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5567.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5557.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4069.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4291.
-Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3825.
-Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4424.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2413.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3167.
-Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1005.
-Year of the era of Nahonassar, king of Babylon, 814.
-Year of the CCXIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 812.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 816.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 817.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 818.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidae, 377.
-Year of the Caesarean era of Antioch, 113.
-Year of the Julian era, 110.
-Year of the Spanish era, 103.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ, according to Archbishop Usher, 69.
-Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 85.
-Year of Gessius Florus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 5.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 2.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 16.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 66.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 9; or the year after the third embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 6; or the second embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 18.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first year after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, F.
-Day of the Jewish Passover, the seventh of April, which happened in this year on the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the fourteenth of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 28.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 6.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 6, 8, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 13, 14, 16, 16.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 17.
-Year of the Emperor Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar, 12.
-Roman Consuls, A. Licinius Nerva Silanus, and M. Vestinius Atticus. Vestinius was succeeded by Anicius Cerealis on the first of July.
JUDE.
The address and apostolical benediction, 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,
3-7.
Of the false teachers, 8.
Of Michael disputing about the body of Moses, 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, 10, 11.
Are impure, unsteady, fierce, shameless, c., 12, 13.
How Enoch prophesied of such, 14, 15.
They are farther described as murmurers and complainers, 16.
We should remember the cautions given unto us by the apostles
who foretold of these men, 17-19.
We should build up ourselves on our most holy faith, 20, 21.
How the Church of Christ should treat such, 22, 23.
The apostle’s farewell, and his doxology to God, 24, 25.
NOTES ON THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
Verse 1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ] Probably Jude the apostle, who was surnamed Thaddeus and Lebbeus, was son to Alpheus, and brother to James the less, Joses, and Simon. See Mt 10:3, and collate with Lu 6:16 Mt 13:55. See the preface.
Brother of James] Supposed to be James the less, bishop of Jerusalem, mentioned here, because he was an eminent person in the Church. See the preface to St. James.
To them that are sanctified by God] Instead of , to the sanctified, AB, several others, both the Syriac, Erpen’s Arabic, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, AEthiopic, and Vulgate, with several of the fathers, have , to them that are beloved; and before , in God, some MSS., with the Syriac and Armenian, have , to the Gentiles, in God the Father: but although the first is only a probable reading, this is much less so. St. Jude writes to all believers everywhere, and not to any particular Church; hence this epistle has been called a general epistle.
Sanctified signifies here consecrated to God through faith in Christ.
Preserved in (or by) Jesus Christ] Signifies those who continued unshaken in the Christian faith; and implies also, that none can be preserved in the faith that do not continue in union with Christ, by whose grace alone they can be preserved and called. This should be read consecutively with the other epithets, and should be rather, in a translation, read first than last, to the saints in God the Father, called and preserved by Christ Jesus. Saints is the same as Christians; to become such they were called to believe in Christ by the preaching of the Gospel, and having believed, were preserved by the grace of Christ in the life and practice of piety.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Jude; called also Lebbaeus, and Thaddaeus, Mat 10:3.
The servant of Jesus Christ; not only in the general notion, as a believer, but in a more special, as an apostle. Priests and prophets in the Old Testament are peculiarly called God’s servants, Psa 134:1-3; Amo 3:7; and so are ministers in the New, 2Ti 2:24.
And brother of James; that James who was the son of Alphaeus, Mat 10:3. He mentions his brother to distinguish himself from Judas Iscariot; and his brother rather than his father, because James was most famous in the church, Act 15:1-41; Gal 2:9; 1Co 9:5; as likewise to show his consent with his brother in his doctrine, and to make his Epistle the more acceptable.
To them that are sanctified by God the Father, viz. as the prime efficient cause of sanctification, which he works in believers by the Son, through the Spirit.
And preserved in Jesus Christ: their salvation, and perseverance, and deliverance from dangers, not being in their own power; he intimates, that Christ was appointed to be their King, and Head, and Keeper, the Author and Finisher of their faith, Heb 12:2, and furnished with power for their protection and security, and that by him they were kept unto the salvation purchased for them, viz. by his powerful operation and gracious influence maintaining their faith and union with himself.
And called, with an effectual calling, the beginning of their sanctification, before mentioned. The copulative, and, is not in the Greek; and the words may be read, sanctified by God the Father, preserved in Jesus Christ, as being called; and so called may be understood as going before the other two; and then the sense is, to the called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ; or, to them who, being called, are sanctified, &c.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
servantof Jesus Christ as His minister and apostle.
brotherof James who was more widely known as bishop of Jerusalem and brotherof the Lord (that is, either cousin,or stepbrother, being son of Joseph by a former marriage; for ancienttraditions universally agree that Mary, Jesus mother, continuedperpetually a virgin). Jude therefore calls himself modestly brotherof James. See my Introduction.
tothem … sanctified by God the Father The oldest manuscripts and versions, Origen, Lucifer, and othersread, beloved for sanctified.If EnglishVersionbe read, compare Col1:12;1Pe1:2.The Greekis not by, but in. God the Fathers loveis the element IN which they are beloved. Thus the conclusion,Jud1:21,corresponds, Keep yourselves inthe love of God. Compare beloved of the Lord 2Th2:13.
preservedin Jesus Christ kept. Translate not in, but as Greek,FOR Jesus Christ. Kept continually(so the Greekperfectparticiple means) by God the Father for Jesus Christ, against theday of His coming. Jude, beforehand, mentions the source andguarantee for the final accomplishment of believers salvation;lest they should be disheartened by the dreadful evils which heproceeds to announce [Bengel].
andcalled predicated of them that are beloved in God the Father, andpreserved in Jesus Christ: who are called. Gods effectualcallingin the exercise of His divine prerogative, guarantees their eternalsafety.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ,…. The author of this epistle is the same who is elsewhere called Judas, Lu 6:16, who was one of the twelve apostles of Christ, whose name was also Lebbaeus, and whose surname was Thaddaeus, Mt 10:3, the name is the same with Judah, Ge 29:35, which comes from a word that signifies “to praise” or “confess”; and in the Rabbinical dialect is called , “Juda” e, as here. He styles himself “the servant of Jesus Christ”; [See comments on Ro 1:1]; though this is a title common to all believers, yet here, and in some other places, it is peculiar to an apostle, or minister of the Gospel; and therefore is used not merely in humility, and to acknowledge obedience to Christ, but as a title of dignity and honour: and the apostle goes on to describe himself by his natural relation,
and brother of James; not the son of Zebedee, but of Alphaeus,
Mt 10:2; and this he mentions partly to distinguish himself from others of that name, as Judas Iscariot, and Judas called Barsabas; and partly for the sake of honour and credit, James being a very great man, a man of great note and esteem, and who seemed to be a pillar in the church, and was called the brother of our Lord, Ga 2:9; an account of the persons to whom this epistle is inscribed next follows,
to them that are sanctified by God the Father; which is to be understood not of internal sanctification, which is usually ascribed to the Spirit of God, but of the act of eternal election, which is peculiar to God the Father; in which sense Christ is said to be sanctified by the Father, and men ordained and appointed to an office, and vessels are set apart the owner’s use; Joh 10:36 Jer 1:5; the language is taken from the ceremonial law, by which persons and things were sanctified, or set apart for sacred use and service; see Ex 13:2; and so the elect of God are by God the Father sanctified and set apart in the act of election, which is expressed by this word; partly because of its separating nature, men being by it separated from the rest of the world, to the use and service of God, and for his glory, so that they are a distinct and peculiar people; and partly because such are chosen through sanctification of the Spirit, and unto holiness both in this world and that which is to come; so that the doctrine of election is no licentious doctrine; for though holiness is not the cause of it, yet is a means fixed in it, and is certain by it, and an evidence of it; the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read, “to them that are loved by God the Father”: election is the fruit and effect of love; those that are sanctified or set apart by the Father in election, are loved by him. The Ethiopic version renders it quite otherwise, “to them that love God the Father”; which flows from the Father’s love to them:
and preserved in Jesus Christ; those who are sanctified, or set apart by God the Father in election, are in Christ, for they are chosen in him; they have a place in his heart, and they are put into his hands, and are in him, and united to him as members to an head, and were represented by him in the covenant of grace; and being in him, they are preserved by him, and that before they are called, as well as after; wherefore this character is put before that of being called, though the Syriac version puts that in the first place: there is a secret preservation of them in Christ before calling, from condemnation and the second death; they were not preserved from falling in Adam, with the rest of mankind, nor from the corruption of human nature, nor from actual sins and transgressions; yet, notwithstanding these, were so preserved that the law could not execute the sentence of condemnation on them, nor sin damn them, nor Satan, who led them captive, hale them to prison; and after calling, they are preserved not from indwelling sin, nor from the temptations of Satan, nor from doubts and fears and unbelief, nor from slips and falls into sin; but from the tyranny and dominion of sin, from being devoured by Satan, and from a total and final falling away; they are preserved in the love of God, and of Christ; in the covenant of grace; in a state of justification and adoption; and in the paths of truth, faith, and holiness; and are preserved safe to the heavenly kingdom and glory: their other character follows,
[and] called; not merely externally by the ministry of the word, but internally by the Spirit and grace of God; so that this is to be understood of a special and effectual call, whereby souls are called out of darkness into light, and from bondage to liberty; and from a dependence on themselves to the grace and righteousness of Christ; and from society with the men of the world to fellowship with him; and to eternal glory, so as to have faith and hope concerning it.
e Yalkut Simeoni, par. 2. fol. 50. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Apostolic Benediction. | A. D. 66. |
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Here we have the preface or introduction, in which,
I. We have an account of the penman of this epistle, Jude, or Judas, or Judah. He was name-sake to one of his ancestors, the patriarch–son of Jacob, the most eminent though not the first-born of his sons, out of whose loins (lineally, in a most direct succession) the Messiah came. This was a name of worth, eminency, and honour; yet 1. He had a wicked name-sake. There was one Judas (one of the twelve, surnamed Iscariot, from the place of his birth) who was a vile traitor, the betrayer of his and our Lord. The same names may be common to the best and worst persons. It may be instructive to be called after the names of eminently good men, but there can be no inference drawn thence as to what we shall prove, though we may even thence conclude what sort of persons our good parents or progenitors desired and hoped we should be. But, 2. Our Judas was quite another man. He was an apostle, so was Iscariot; but he was a sincere disciple and follower of Christ, so was not the other. He was a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, the other was his betrayer and murderer; therefore here the one is very carefully distinguished from the other. Dr. Manton’s note upon this is, that God takes great care of the good name of his sincere and useful servants. Why then should we be prodigal of our own or one another’s reputation and usefulness? Our apostle here calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, esteeming that a most honourable title. It is more honourable to be a sincere and useful servant of Christ than to be an earthly king, how potent and prosperous soever. He might have claimed kindred to Christ according to the flesh, but he waives this, and rather glories in being his servant. Observe, (1.) It is really a greater honour to be a faithful servant of Jesus Christ than to be akin to him according to the flesh. Many of Christ’s natural kindred, as well as of his progenitors, perished; not from want of natural affection in him as man, but from infidelity and obstinacy in themselves, which should make the descendants and near relatives of persons most eminent for sincere and exemplary piety jealous over themselves with a godly jealousy. A son of Noah may be saved in the ark from a flood of temporal destruction, and yet be overwhelmed at last in a deluge of divine wrath, and suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. Christ himself tells us that he that heareth his word and doeth it (that is, he only) is as his brother, and sister, and mother, that is, more honourably and advantageously related to him than the nearest and dearest of his natural relatives, considered merely as such. See Matt. xii. 48-50. (2.) In that the apostle Jude styles himself a servant, though an apostle, a dignified officer in Christ’s kingdom, it is a great honour to the meanest sincere minister (and it holds proportionably as to every upright Christian) that he is the servant of Christ Jesus. The apostles were servants before they were apostles, and they were but servants still. Away then with all pretensions in the ministers of Christ to lordly dominion either over one another or over the flocks committed to their charge. Let us ever have that of our dear Redeemer in actual view, It shall not be so among you,Mat 20:25; Mat 20:26. —And brother of James, to wit, of him whom the ancients style the first bishop of Jerusalem, of whose character and martyrdom Josephus makes mention, ascribing the horrible destruction of that city and nation to this wicked cruelty, as one of its principal causes. Of this James our Jude was brother, whether in the strictest or a larger (though very usual) acceptation I determine not. He however reckons it an honour to him that he was the brother of such a one. We ought to honour those who are above us in age, gifts, graces, station; not to envy them, yet neither to flatter them, nor be led merely by their example, when we have reason to think they act wrong. Thus the apostle Paul withstood his fellow-apostle Peter to the face, notwithstanding the high esteem he had for him and the affectionate love he bore to him, when he saw that he was to be blamed, that is, really blameworthy, Gal. ii. 11, and following verses.
II. We are here informed to whom this epistle is directed; namely, to all those who are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. I begin with the last–called, that is, called Christians, in the judgment of charity, further than which we cannot, nor in justice ought to go, in the judgments or opinions we form or receive of one another; for what appears not is not, nor ought to come into account in all our dealings with and censures of one another, whatever abatements the divine goodness may see fit to make for an honest though misguided zeal. The church pretends not (I am sure it ought not) to judge of secret or hidden things (things drawn into the light before time), lest our rash and preposterous zeal do more harm than good, or I am afraid ever will do. The tares and wheat (if Christ may be Judge) must grow together till the harvest (Matt. xiii. 28-30); and then he himself will, by proper instruments, take timely care to separate them. We ought to think the best we can of every man till the contrary appear; not being forward to receive or propagate, much less invent, disadvantageous characters of our brethren. This is the least we can make of the apostle’s large and excellent description of charity (1 Cor. xiii.), and this we ought to make conscience of acting up to, which till we do, the Christian churches will be (as, alas! they are at this day) filled with envying and strife, confusion and every evil work, Jam. iii. 16. Or, the apostle may speak of their being called to be Christians, by the preaching of the word, which they gladly received, and professed cordially to believe, and so were received into the society and fellowship of the church–Christ the head, and believers the members; real believers really, professed believers visibly. Note, Christians are the called, called out of the world, the evil spirit and temper of it,–above the world, to higher and better things, heaven, things unseen and eternal,–called from sin to Christ, from vanity to seriousness, from uncleanness to holiness; and this in pursuance of divine purpose and grace; for whom he did predestinate those he also called, Rom. viii. 30. Now those who are thus called, are, 1. Sanctified: Sanctified by God the Father. Sanctification is usually spoken of in scripture as the work of the Holy Spirit, yet here it is ascribed to God the Father, because the Spirit works it as the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Note, All who are effectually called are sanctified, made partakers of a divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4); for without holiness no man shall see the Lord, Heb. xii. 14. Observe, Our sanctification is not our own work. If any are sanctified, they are so by God the Father, not excluding Son or Spirit, for they are one, one God. Our corruption and pollution are of ourselves; but our sanctification and renovation are of God and his grace; and therefore if we perish in our iniquity we must bear the blame, but if we be sanctified and glorified all the honour and glory must be ascribed to God, and to him alone. I own it is hard to give a clear and distinct account of this, but we must not deny nor disregard necessary truth because we cannot fully reconcile the several parts of it to each other; for, on that supposition, we might deny that any one of us could stir an inch from the place we are at present in, though we see the contrary every day and hour. 2. The called and sanctified are preserved in Christ Jesus. As it is God who begins the work of grace in the souls of men, so it is he who carries it on, and perfects it. Where he begins he will perfect; though we are fickle, he is constant. He will not forsake the work of his own hands, Ps. cxxxviii. 8. Let us not therefore trust in ourselves, nor in our stock of grace already received, but in him, and in him alone, still endeavouring, by all proper and appointed means, to keep ourselves, as ever we would hope he should keep us. Note, (1.) Believers are preserved from the gates of hell, and to the glory of heaven. (2.) All who are preserved are preserved in Jesus Christ, in him as their citadel and stronghold, no longer than they abide in him, and solely by virtue of their union with him.
III. We have the apostolical benediction: Mercy to you, c. From the mercy, peace, and love of God all our comfort flows, all our real enjoyment in this life, all our hope of a better. 1. The mercy of God is the spring and fountain of all the good we have or hope for mercy not only to the miserable, but to the guilty. 2. Next to mercy is peace, which we have from the sense of having obtained mercy. We can have no true and lasting peace but what flows from our reconciliation with God by Jesus Christ. 3. As from mercy springs peace, so from peace springs love, his love to us, our love to him, and our brotherly love (forgotten, wretchedly neglected, grace!) to one another. These the apostle prays may be multiplied, that Christians may not be content with scraps and narrow scantlings of them; but that souls and societies may be full of them. Note, God is ready to supply us with all grace, and a fulness in each grace. If we are straitened, we are not straitened in him, but in ourselves.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Servant (). Precisely as James (Jas 1:1), only James added (Lord).
Brother of James ( ). Thus Jude identifies himself. But not the “Judas of James” (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13).
To them that are called (—). But this translation (treating as a substantive like Rom 1:6; 1Cor 1:24) is by no means certain as two participles come in between and . may be in the predicate position (being called), not attributive. But see 1Pe 1:1.
Beloved in God the Father ( ). Perfect passive participle of , but no precise parallel to this use of with .
Kept for Jesus Christ ( ). Perfect passive participle again with dative, unless it is the instrumental, “kept by Jesus Christ,” a quite possible interpretation.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Jude. Rev., Judas. One of the brethren of Jesus; not the brother of James the Apostle, the son of Alphaeus, but of James the superintendent of the church at Jerusalem. He is named among the brethren of the Lord. Mt 13:55; Mr 6:3.
Servant. He does not call himself an apostle, as Paul and Peter in their introductions, and seems to distinguish himself from the apostles in vv. 17, 18 : “The apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that they said,” etc. We are told that Christ ‘s brethren did not believe on him (Joh 7:5); and in Acts 1 the brethren of Jesus (ver. 14) are mentioned in a way which seems to separate them from the apostles. Doulov, bond – servant, occurs in the introductions to Romans, Philippians, Titus, James, and 2 Peter.
Brother of James. That Jude does not allude to his relationship to the Lord may be explained by the fact that the natural relationship in his mind would be subordinate to the spiritual (see Luk 11:27, 28), and that such a designation would, as Dean Alford remarks, “have been in harmony with those later and superstitious feelings with which the next and following ages regarded the Lord ‘s earthly relatives.” He would shrink from emphasizing a distinction to which none of the other disciples or apostles could have a claim, the more so because of his former unbelief in Christ ‘s authority and mission. It is noticeable that Jas. likewise avoids such a designation.
Kept. See on 1Pe 1:4. Compare Joh 17:6, 12.
In Jesus Christ [ ] . The simple dative without preposition. Therefore for Jesus Christ; by the Father to whom Christ committed them (Joh 17:11). Compare 1Th 5:23; Phi 1:6, 10.
Called [] . At the end of the verse, for emphasis.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
JUDE – THE PARTICULAR EPISTLE
The book of Jude was written by him to a particular fellowship of sanctified believers. It concerned problems that had arisen among them and offered warnings, instructions, and admonitions concerning such problems. The letter may be considered a general epistle only in the sense that the truths set forth in the book apply to any local congregation or fellowship, that then or might thereafter have similar problems or needs. The teachings were, in a special sense, warnings set forth that might apply to like people in any area and any era of Christian history, but in a restricted sense at that time, the letter was particular, evidently to a local congregation in Asia Minor.
WRITER:JUDE was the brother of James “the less”, little of stature, “the just” who was also pastor of the Jerusalem Church, (Jas 1:1, Gal 2:9; Gal 2:12; Mat 4:21.)
Jude, same as Lebbaeus, surname Thaddaeus, son of Alphaeus
(Cleopas) and Mary, this Mary was a sister of Mary the mother of our Lord, Joh 19:25, Mat 10:3, Luk 6:16.
DATE:About A.D. 66
TO:Sanctified, preserved, and called
THEME:The common salvation – contending for the faith recognizing and resisting wrongdoers, their sure judgement, and self-perseverance of believers, causing havoc.
OCCASION:Moral and doctrinal apostates had crept in among the sanctified assembly of believers, causing havoc.
Part I IDENTITY AND GREETING
1) Jude was the brother of James the less – (Little of stature) (Mar 15:40; Jas 1:1). He was also a brother of the same James, pastor of the Jerusalem church and one of the three disciples who “seemed to be pillars”, Gal 2:9-12; Act 15:13. He was the son of Alphaeus (Cleopas) and Mary, sister of our Lord’s mother; Joh 19:25. He is also believed to be the Lebbaeus, surname Thaddaeus of Mat 10:3; Luk 6:16.
2) “To them that are (a present state or condition) sanctified,” (Greek, egape menois) (made holy, loved, set apart) by God the Father. This identifies the persons of address as saved persons who were set apart from the world – world order – to live an active life of service to God, 1Jn 2:15-17; Col 3:1-2. The saved are responsible for acts of voluntary will. Those sanctified having been loved, in salvation are to sanctify (set apart) themselves from unholy things to holy living and service. 1Pe 3:15; 1Ti 4:5; 2Ti 2:21.
3) “To the preserved in Jesus Christ” means to be secure, to be safe, in Jesus Christ. The gift of faith that brings salvation and sanctification to the penitent believer also brings Christ life which the Father gave Him – eternal life, life without end, without cessation. (Eph 2:8-9; Joh 1:11-12; Joh 5:26; Joh 1:4; Joh 10:27-28; Joh 5:10-13).
4) “To the called in Jesus Christ” the called” (Greek Kletois – called ones) in Jesus Christ identifies the sanctified and preserved as those “in Jesus Christ,” a present state or condition of being, who “were called” to Jesus and had “come to him” for salvation and rest. Pro 1:24-25; Isa 65:12; Rom 10:21; Mat 11:28; Joh 6:37. The called in Jesus Christ are those once out of Jesus Christ – unsaved, but who in time, gave heed to the call of His Word and His spirit and came to Him, at His call and drawing Rom 10:17; Heb 3:7; Heb 4:7. God still calls the lost, the prodigal, to personal salvation in Jesus Christ – all unsaved; the whole world has a general call to salvation and a personal, particular call through the Spirit, but only such as have personally chosen, received Jesus by faith-are “the called”, in Jesus Christ. To such was this book of Jude written.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1 Jude the servant of Jesus Christ. He calls himself the servant of Christ, not as the name applies to all the godly, but with respect to his apostleship; for they were deemed peculiarly the servants of Christ, who had some public office committed to them. And we know why the apostles were wont to give themselves this honorable name. Whosoever is not called, arrogates to himself presumptuously the right and authority of teaching. Then their calling was an evidence to the apostles, that they did not thrust themselves into their office through their own will. It was not, however, of itself sufficient to be appointed to their office, except they faithfully discharged it. And, no doubt, he who declares himself to be the servant of God, includes both these things, that is, that God is the bestower of the office which he exercises, and that he faithfully performs what has been committed to him. Many act falsely, and falsely boast to be what they are very far from being: we ought always to examine whether the reality corresponds with the profession.
And brother of James. He mentions a name more celebrated than his own, and more known to the churches. For though faithfulness of doctrine and authority do not depend on the names of mortal men, yet it is a confirmation to the faith, when the integrity of the man who undertakes the office of a teacher is made certain to us. Besides, the authority of James is not here brought forward as that of a private individual, but because he was counted by all the Church as one of the chief apostles of Christ. He was the son of Alpheus, as I have said elsewhere. Nay, this very passage is a sufficient proof to me against Eusebius and others, who say, that he was a disciple, named Oblias, [James,] mentioned by Luke, in Act 15:13; Act 21:18, who was more eminent than the apostles in the Church. (187) But there is no doubt but that Jude mentions here his own brother, because he was eminent among the apostles. It is, then, probable, that he was the person to whom the chief honor was conceded by the rest, according to what Luke relates.
To them that are sanctified by God the Father, or, to the called who are sanctified, etc. (188) By this expression, “the called,” he denotes all the faithful, because the Lord has separated them for himself. But as calling is nothing else but the effect of eternal election, it is sometimes taken for it. In this place it makes but little difference in which way you take it; for he, no doubt, commends the grace of God, by which he has been pleased to choose them as his peculiar treasure. And he intimates that men do not anticipate God, and that they never come to him until he draws them.
Of the same he says that they were sanctified in God the Father, which may be rendered, “by God the Father.” I have, however, retained the very form of the expression, that readers may exercise their own judgment. For it may be, that this is the sense, — that being profane in themselves, they had their holiness in God. But the way in which God sanctifies is, by regenerating us by his Spirit.
Another reading, which the Vulgate has followed, is somewhat harsh, “To the beloved ( ἠγαπημένοις) in God the Father.” I therefore regard it as corrupt; and it is, indeed, found but in a few copies.
He further adds, that they were preserved in Jesus Christ. For we should be always in danger of death through Satan, and he might take us at any moment as an easy prey, were we not safe under the protection of Christ, whom the Father has given to be our guardian, so that none of those whom he has received under his care and shelter should perish.
Jude then mentions here a threefold blessing, or favor of God, with regard to all the godly, — that he has made them by his calling partakers of the gospel; that he has regenerated them, by his Spirit, unto newness of life; and that he has preserved them by the hand of Christ, so that they might not fall away from salvation.
(187) Some have held, that James, mentioned in the forecited places in Acts, was not James the apostle, but another James, a disciple, and one of the seventy, who was also called Oblias: but this is not correct. — Ed.
(188) So Beza renders the words, “To the called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved by Jesus Christ:” that is, to the effectually called, (as the word commonly means,) set apart and separated by God from the ungodly world, and kept by Christ, having been committed to his care and protection. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED
Jud 1:1-25.
THE Epistle of Jude is the seventh and last of the catholic Epistles. After much controversy this Epistle was voted as clearly belonging to the sacred canon, the arguments which had been presented against its inspiration and validity being much more than matched by the array of those that favored both.
In the introduction to the Epistle, the author tells us who he wasJude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. It will be remembered that Matthews Gospel reports Jesus as coming into His own country and teaching in the synagogue, and the astonished auditors said, Whence hath this Man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenters son? is not His mother called Mary? and His brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
There is every reason to believe that the author of this Epistle is none other than that same Judas, the brother of Jesus.
Like a true apostle, he does not dream of lifting himself to the level of Jesus, and modestly omits all mention of his relationship to Him, save that he is His servant, but concerning the well-known Apostle James, he can say, I am his brother. When in the first chapter of Acts the little company in the upper chamber are mentioned, we find Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas, the brother of James. But you will note that the brother is in italics. The last mentioned of this company was in all probability the author of this Epistle.
Whether written before or after the fall of Jerusalem, before or after the Second Epistle of Peter, which it in some respects parallels, are questions of unsettled controversy, while its certain quotations from Enoch and its apparent quotations from The Ascension of Mosesbooks held to be apocryphalhave discredited it in some quarters.
It is a singular thing, however, that men should so argue. When Paul quotes from the Greek poets no one thinks of either discrediting what he says or calling his inspiration into question; and the books of Enoch and Moses deal with far more important subjects, and whether inspired or not, they partake of the nature of Old Testament history. If there were time, and the exposition of this Epistle demanded it, I think a strong argument in favor of the possible inspiration of the book of Enoch could be presented. For hundreds of years Higher Criticism has attempted to take something from the Canon as at present constituted. It would not be at all surprising if this so-called science should eventually have to concede to the Canon another book or two.
But waiving all questions of controversy, let us give ourselves to the study of Jude.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS EPISTLE
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jud 1:3).
It was born of constraint. The language of the Apostle seems to indicate that he had been contemplating the necessity of addressing to the saints, at large, an Epistle concerning the great salvation which was in Jesus. While he pondered what to say, the Spirit came upon him and turned his thoughts in another direction and compelled him to write what we find in this single chapter.
Such Spirit-constrained productions are the best ever put forth. Spirit-constraint Accounts for true prophecy. Happy is that minister of the Gospel who speaks under the constraint of the Spirit, and wretched is that same man when constrained by circumstances to speak.
When people of means have great interests at stake in court, they often employ two or three lawyers; not that each of them is to appear before judge or jury, but because one may be a capable pleader, while the other is an expert counsellor.
He who pleads our cause before God is none other than Jesus, and yet we need what Dubose described as a chamber counsellor who will direct our steps, indite our thoughts, give form to our words, and effectiveness to our actions.
Simon Browne was thinking of his need of this holy constraint when he wrote:
Come gracious Spirit, heavenly Dove,With light and comfort from above;Be Thou our guardian, Thou our guide;Oer every thought and step preside.
To us the light of truth display,And make us know and choose Thy way;Plant holy fear in every heart,That we from God may neer depart.
Lead us to holiness, the road Which we must take to dwell with God;Lead us to Christ, the living way,Nor let us from His pastures stray.
It contains an exhortation:
It is needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you.
If Jude were an Apostle, this was his right by Divine appointment. Peter at Pentecost, after having presented the way of salvation, with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Paul, in writing to Timothy, said, Teach and exhort (1Ti 6:2), and again, Preach the Word; he instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2Ti 4:2-4). And again he says, Suffer the word of exhortation.
There was another right that the Apostles had to exhort, namely, the right born of sacrifice incident to their relationship with the Lord. If one look into church history, he will find the record of violent death for almost every man who belonged to the apostolate.
Matthew perished at the edge of the sword; Mark as the result of having been dragged through the streets of Alexandria; Luke was hanged upon an olive tree in the classic land of Greece; St. John was flung first into a boiling pot, and, though saved in a miraculous manner, was afterward banished to the Isle of Patmos; Peter was crucified at Rome with his head down; James beheaded at Jerusalem; Philip crushed against the pillars of Hieropolis; Bartholomew flayed alive; Andrew perished on a cross; St. Thomas was pierced by a lance; Matthias was stoned and beheaded; Paul perished in the same manner at Rome, and Jude was shot to death with arrows. The men who loved not their lives unto the death were surely the ones who had a right to exhort concerning the controversy about the word of their testimony.
It involved a contention.
It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
What was that faith? It is doubtful if one can find a better definition of it than Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 15, where he says, For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
The sacrificial death of Christ, His burial and resurrection, His ascension, His intercession, His return, and His final victory over all, Paul finds among the fundamentals of the faith. He received them from the Spirit; he delivered them unto the saints, and Jude enjoins upon his readers that they earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered.
The times upon which we have fallen would mock the faith which was once delivered, and mend the faith which was once delivered, and improve the faith which was once delivered. Contrary to the opinion of Jude that the true Gospel is complete and final and needs no supplement; contrary to the opinion of Paul, expressed in Gal 1:6-9 to the same effect, we are told now that the Gospel is an evolution still in process.
John Henry Newman as long ago as 1845 put forth this theory in his essay on Development of Christian Doctrine, and later Strauss took an additional step and dubbed the doctrines of early Christianity as repulsive beliefs which thoughtful men had long since left behind.
Scholarship has been called upon by both of these writers to keep what was exact, and supply what was deficient.
How are Protestants to accomplish this? Where is our Popethe infallible man who makes no mistake, and what has he supplied? It is just such a departure from the faith which was once delivered that has given to Romanism an immaculate conception for the virgin, exalted her to a place of worship. It is just such accessions to the faith which was once delivered that gave rise to purgatory, indulgences, communion with the church, and excommunication from it. In fact, it was just such accessions which gave birth to the notion of a Pope, and finally put all authority into his lips.
Will any less beneficial results be seen when Protestants attempt the same. John in his Second Epistle anticipates this very departure from the faith and prescribes the course of the true Church in dealing with such an one. He says,
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there dome any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2Jn 1:7-11).
This brings us to the real occasion of this Epistle, namely,
THE PRESENCE OF APOSTATES
Jude is disturbed over their membership in the Church, saying,
There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ (Jud 1:4).
He then proceeds to remind them that this is not the first time in human history that apostates have occupied prominent positions, and he records the dealings of God with apostates of the past.
First of all, he cites the instance of Israel.
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not (Jud 1:5).
The judgment of the antediluvian world when it had apostatized in both faith and conduct, is being abundantly proved by archaeology. The spade is uncovering incontestable proofs of the flood. The judgment that fell upon Israel later when her apostasy necessitated the same has never been in debate. Living, scattered Israel, without a king, without a nation, held in uniform contempt the world around, attests the text.
The International Bible Encyclopaedia commenting on this text says, Forsaking Jehovah was the characteristic and oft-recurring sin of the chosen people, especially in their contact with idolatrous nations. The tendency appeared in their earliest history as abundantly seen in the warnings and prohibitions of the laws of Moses. The fearful consequences of religious and moral apostasy appear in the curses pronounced against this sin, on Mount Ebal, by the representatives of the six of the tribes of Israel, elected by Moses. So wayward was the heart of Israel even in the years immediately following the national emancipation in the wilderness, that Joshua found it necessary to repledge the entire nation to a new fidelity to Jeh, and to their original covenant before they were permitted to enter the promised land. Infidelity to this covenant blighted the nations prospects and growth during the time of the Judges. It was the cause of prolific and ever increasing evil, civic and moral, from Solomons day to the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Many of the kings of the divided kingdom apostatized, leading the people, as in the case of Rehoboam, into the grossest forms of idolatry and immorality. Conspicuous examples of such royal apostasy are Jeroboam, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Ahaz, Manasseh, Amon. Prophecy originated as a Divine and imperative protest against this historic tendency to defection from the religion of Jeh.
From Israel Jude passes to the rebellion of angels.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Peter speaking of this apostasy says,
If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to he reserved unto judgment;
And spared not the old World, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked (2Pe 2:4-7).
Again, Jude mentions the judgment of apostate cities.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Here again scientists are increasingly convinced that such cities existed and the judgment that came upon them was complete, not only wiping them from the earth, but so perfectly destroying them as to leave a basin where they stood.
Now the reasoning of Jude, of course, is this: that God is the same, and the apostasy of the present will no more escape judgment than have the apostasies of the past. And yet how strange that, with all of this history before their faces, men who are supposed to be students of history and even of the Bible itself dare to both practice and propagate apostasy from the faith.
An author widely read and quoted by modernists argues that the salvation of the church depends upon such radical modification of its doctrines and observances as to make it entirely satisfactory to the world.
It was this world entanglement that brought the flood; it was this world entanglement that brought judgment upon Israel; it was this world entanglement that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities round about.
We are not enamored of Catholic history. The pagan yoke of Romanism our ancestors long since flung from their necks, and became free men. The papal deliverances do not always excite our applause. But when some years since the Pope, referring to the present apostasy in doctrine, called attention to the notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who by arts entirely new and full of deceit are striving to destroy the vital energy of the church; and who assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man, he spake the words of truth and soberness, and evinced a holy indignation which the Protestant people would do well to share.
Recently Dr. Albert E. Day, who we understand is also a modernist, said, Something is missing in our modern religion. Everywhere throughout the church there is a vague sense of loss, of something wrong. Some think this can be overcome by some new device, some magic method of making up in peace what is lacking in prophecy; but it cannot be done. There must be a new code of faith, deeper and more challenging, than either literalist or liberal now knows, if the lost radiance of religion is to be restored. Slowly we are attaining breadth in religion, but at the expense of depth, power, and vitality.
How could it be otherwise when men apostatize from God and degrade Him to the level of their own lives; when men dispute the authority and integrity even of His holy Word; when men bring His Son to the low level of a human teacher; when men despise the Blood wherewith they were sanctified, and even treat it as an unholy thing; when men repudiate the supernatural and propose to explain all Divine interventions on the grounds of natural law? The Christian religion is eviserated; the apostasy is complete, and the judgment day draws nigh.
Dr. Augustus Strong, great president of the once orthodox Seminary at Rochester, had occasion to say, The unbelief in our Seminary teaching is like a blind mist which is slowly settling down upon our churches, and is gradually abolishing not only all definite views of Christian doctrine, but also all conviction of duty to contend earnestly for the faith of our Fathers.
Dr. Robert G. Lee was absolutely justified when he said, Because of the perverse tendencies of these coaxing conjecturalists, whose words and writings lay hold upon the human minds and hearts, as cancer smites the holy sanctuaries of the human body, or as tuberculosis blasts the delicate tissues of the lungs, our intellectual atmosphere is unhealthy, our psychology is frequently destructive, our philosophy is often superficial and immoral and the faith of our fathers is made a buffoons bauble.
The inapprehensible bewitchment and the incognitable conclusions of the conjectural cauldron of these anti-Biblical wizards, bring to mind what the second witch said in Scene One, Acts 4, of Macbeth:
Fillet of the fenny snake In the cauldron boil and bake;Eye of newt and toe of frog,Wool of bat and tongue of dog,Adders leg and blind-worms sting,Lizards leg and howlets wing,For a charm of powerful trouble,Like a hell-broth boil and bubble!
These conjecturers have gone out into the fields of the scientific and the natural, and have found the wild vines and gathered, there, of gourds their laps full, and have made of them a pernicious pottage. And they pour this pottage out for folks to eat. And, with supercilious pose and an air of intellectual superiority they laugh at us for crying aloud to the youth of our generation, There is death in the pot!
It might be well to remember that while such self-imposed death may seem a judgment from God, and, in fact, is, it is also the natural fruit of the philosophic poison which these self-appointed leaders have first prepared and eaten, and then passed on to those who were so unwise as to eat from their hand.
It is little wonder that Jude writes,
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, 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.
These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having mens persons in admiration because of advantage (Jud 1:11-16).
Finally
THE APOSTOLIC INJUNCTIONS
An analysis of this position suggests keeping ones self in true faith and good works, and yet trusting not in self but in Christ alone, that we may honor Him above both men and angels.
Keeping ones self in true faith and good works.
But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of Our Lord Jesus Christ;
How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
And of some have compassion, making a difference:
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jud 1:17-23).
There are people who attempt to pit Paul against James, and to make it appear that faith is all, and works are nothing. There are far more, however, that attempt to pit James against Paul, and make it appear that works are all, and faith is nothing. Both are wrong! We are saved by faith, and yet faith that does not evidence itself in works is an empty profession.
Arthur Pierson in Seed Thoughts for Public Speakers, says, Faith is the condition of justification and works justify, or prove and exhibit faith. The faith which justifies is, therefore, a vital bond of union with Christ, and seminally carries with it, and within it, the germ afterward developing into holy obedience. Paul and James not only express agreeing and analogous, but identical sentiments. Paul speaks of faith as the seed of works; James, of works, as the flower and fruit of faith. As Mr. Titcomb says: Faith is the seminal agent of justification; works, the visible agent. They resemble the convex and concave surfaces of a crescent; the one implying the other under all circumstances. When we contemplate a spiritual action from its motive side it is faith; on its practical side, work. Faith and works are part and parcel of the same reality.
However, Jude is careful to get before his readers another fact, namely,
They are not to trust in self, but in Christ alone.
Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour (Jud 1:24-25).
It is sad when men fail to apprehend this fact. There is no possible position, no conceivable attainment, no self-generated moral worth that can be accepted as a substitute. Salvation is by grace alone.
General O. O. Howard was widely known as a great Christian. His intimacy with Grant, the product of their fellowship in war, was also due to the fact that Grant so respected Howards character as known in his conduct. When Grant was on his deathbed, Howard visited him. Grants speech was already muffled by the frightful cancer that was eating away his life, and Gen. Howard sought to comfort him concerning his approaching disease, and so reminded him of the great service he had rendered to his country, and told him that America would hold him in grateful remembrance. But he had proceeded a very short way along this line when the muffled voice of the great General interrupted him, and he said, Howard; dont tell me that. Tell me about God.
The greatest men when they come to face eternity can find nothing in the flesh of which to boast, or in which to place confidence for the future. We must then put our trust in Him, who is able to keep and present us spotless before the Divine glory.
With the true believer all honor belongs to God.
To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever (Jud 1:25).
Nature itself would teach us that.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handy work.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge (Psa 19:1-2).
It is related that when a French infidel said to a Vendean peasant, We will pull down your churches, destroy everything that reminds you of God and Christ, the peasant properly replied, But you will leave us the stars, and as long as the stars revolve and shine, so long the heavens will be a sign unto us of the glory of God.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
THE ENEMIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Jud. 1:1. The servant.Better, a servant. As he does not call himself an apostle, we cannot, without adequate reason assigned, identify him with the apostle Judas. Brother of James.Which James is uncertain. Probably the James who wrote the epistle. Perhaps he wished, by this indication, to distinguish himself from others, like Judas, not Iscariot (Joh. 14:22, Luk. 6:16); the Lebbus or Thaddeus of Mat. 10:3; Judas, surnamed Barsabas (Act. 15:22), and others. Perhaps Jude claimed authority as the brother of one so honoured as James the Just. Sanctified.Perhaps beloved is the better reading. If sanctified is kept, the idea in the word must be separated; not made holy. To Jude the Christian disciples are
(1) designated or separated in the Fathers love, and
(2) preserved until the time when they could be
(3) called in Christ Jesus. It was a favourite thought of the early teachers that the disciples were chosen, separated, and preserved by God, before their conscious life of discipleship began, in the personal call of the Lord Jesus.
Jud. 1:2. Mercy, peace, love.Compare 1Pe. 1:2; 2Pe. 1:2. Sometimes grace is used for mercy. All three may be taken as Divine bestowments. Love as the Divine personal affection, finding ever gracious expression. Or the three may be regarded as in logical order; mercy from God to man; hence peace between God and man; hence love of all towards all. Be multiplied., peculiar, in salutation, to Jud. 1:1 and 2 Peter.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Jud. 1:1-2
True Believers.The salutation slightly differs from those of the epistles generally, but in the main both the disposition and the expressions of the writer are of the usual apostolic form. Compare 1Co. 1:2, . Manuscripts A, B, seven cursives, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and some others have , which also both Lachman and Tischendorf have adopted. Having weighed all the arguments, we do not see a sufficient reason for the alteration. Besides, the appellation is more distinguishing when the Church is regarded in relation to the world. Jude was writing to the dispersed Christian Jews, who kept themselves separate from the world. With this the meaning of agrees. It was difficult for them, being few and poor, to preserve that degree of independent life which their profession of Christ demanded; by the power and grace of God they were enabled to do so. In the Syriac version we have the addition, To the Gentiles who are called, beloved of God the Father, etc. Evidently this cannot be a part of the text, although a very good exposition of it, inasmuch as possibly this apostle intended the epistle for the edification of the Gentile converts as well as the Jewish Christians. The terms , and are as comprehensive as any, if not more so, which the other apostles have used. In both his epistles St. Peter only use grace and peace. This also proves that St. Jude was not a slavish copyist or imitator of St. Peter. A very profitable introduction might be worked out from the thought that the apostles regarded their own cordial feelings towards, and their fervent prayers for, those to whom they wrote, and whom they hoped to influence by their writings, of primary importance. To the Christian teacher it is of the utmost importance to stand in the best possible relations to those whom he intends to benefit.
I. Characteristics of the true believers.There are three, and they include all which pertain to godliness.
1. A Divine act in the soul. The idea of consecration is here intended. But we cannot be acceptable to God without the impartation of purity. When we are set apart for the service and glory of Christ, it must be after the washing of regeneration. Sanctification implies the twofold operation of partaking of the Divine nature and being set apart for the Masters use.
2. Divine guardianship over the soul. The idea of preservation here is limited to the faith of believers. They were preserved in the holy state which we have before mentioned. We are preserved in the matter of possessionwhat God has given us, and in the matter of conditionwhat God has made us.
3. Divine leadership before the soul. This is the call to service, activity, and suffering. Whatever we have to do or suffer, there is a voice which calls us thereto.
II. The blessings of true believers.The apostolic prayer is that the threefold condition before described might be sustained by a triple stream of goodness.
1. Gods mercy to maintain their purity. The very idea of weakness and imperfection is here implied. By the constant supply of grace the saints are kept from falling.
2. Gods peace to maintain their preservation. Commotion, strife, perturbation of soul invariably lead to loss and disaster. The godly are safe in tumults because the peace of God rules in their heart.
3. Gods love to inspire their life. To work and die for the Saviour, there is only one incentivethe love of Jesus in the breast. There are other considerations, but this is the mainspring.W. P.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
INTRODUCTION AND SALUTATION: A BELIEVER KEPT SECURELY IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE
Text
1.
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James to them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:
2.
Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied.
Queries
1.
Who is the stated author of the epistle?
2.
What relationship with Jesus is stated?
3.
Does this relationship make it impossible that he could also be the physical brother of Jesus?
4.
What is the stated relationship with James?
5.
Since the James is not further identified, to which James is the reference likely?
6.
What are the three ways in which Jude identifies his readers as Christians?
7.
What does kept mean?
8.
In what way is God the author of our safety?
9.
Since he is writing to those who are kept does this indicate that some who started correctly have not been preserved?
10.
For whom does God call?
11.
Since the persons addressed are obviously the Christians, in what sense does the term called refer only to Christians?
12.
Why does a Christian, who already is preserved in Jesus Christ, need mercy?
13.
Why is peace a real need among Christians?
14.
Be multiplied refers to what quantity of increase?
Paraphrases
A. 1.
Jude, who with his brother James is a bondservant of Jesus Christ; to the Christians who have responded to the call and love of God the Father, and who have been preserved for the cause of Jesus Christ;
2.
may Gods mercy, His peace, and His love be added again and again unto you.
B.*l.
From: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. To: Christians everywhere, for God the Father has chosen you and kept you for Jesus Christ.
2.
May you be given more and more of Gods kindness, peace and love.
Summary
Jude identifies himself as a brother of the well-known James and as a servant of Jesus. He then addresses the Christians with a wish for mercy, peace and love.
Comment
There is some question as to which Jude actually wrote the book. The five Judes of the New Testament include (1) The Judas of Damascus (Act. 9:11). Lack of further mention of this Jude eliminates him as a likely author of the epistle. (2) Judas Barsabas was mentioned in Acts 15 (Act. 15:22; Act. 15:27; Act. 15:32). This Judas accompanies Silas on a trip to Antioch from Jerusalem, and he was also called a prophet (Act. 15:32), but he has never been seriously considered as a likely author of the book of Jude. (3) Then there was Judas Iscariot who was not alive at the time the book was written. This leaves two men by the name of Jude who might have possibly been the author: (4) The Apostle Judas not Iscariot (Joh. 14:22). This apostle is called the brother of James in the Authorised Version, and as such would look like a likely author of the book. However, in this passage the word brother has been added, for it was not contained in the original Greek. (All words printed in italics in the Authorised Version are not in the original Greek). Judas of James in the Greek more likely means Judas, son of James. The later translations so read. Thus the apostle Judas is probably not the author of the book. Had he been, he probably would have mentioned his apostleship in the first verse rather than identifying himself as being the brother of James. (5) The most likely author is the fifth Judas, the brother of Jesus mentioned in Mat. 13:55 and Mar. 6:3. James the author of the epistle James, is identified as the brother of Jesus. It is quite probable that another brother of Jesus, Jude, wrote the Jude epistle. Had he been an apostle, his apostleship would have been a sure mark of identification, but this he does not mention.
You might ask, If Jude, the brother of Jesus, wrote the epistle, why didnt he mention that he was Jesus brother as a mark of identifying himself? Jude no doubt felt his relationship to Jesus as a Lord and servant relationship to be far more important. In humility and for the sake of proper testimony it seems natural he would prefer to call himself a servant of his Lord (which he was). James was so well known that this identification seemed to be sufficient. For this reason the James who was his brother must have been the well-known James who was the Lords brother and who wrote the epistle of James.
Most commentators agree that the epistle was written at a late date, some even giving a date far after the destruction of Jerusalem. The beginning of Gnosticism was evident when the epistle was written. It also appears Jude was familiar with the passages in 2Pe. 1:5; 2Pe. 2:1-18, for he finds their expression so well suited to his purpose that he uses them with slight modification. (Jud. 1:3-18.) Some argue that perhaps Peter was familiar with Jude when he wrote his epistle. This is, of course, another possibility. No exact date can be given, but if Jude was familiar with Peters writing and he wrote before the siege of Jerusalem, then the date would probably be between A.D. 65 and 70. Nothing is known concerning the place of writing.
Jude identifies his readers three ways; the called, beloved, and kept. Although many Christians often argue as to the way in which God calls, the scripture is quite clear that the call of God is given for every man and is given through the gospel. (2Th. 2:13-14). This gives added meaning to the urgency of carrying the good news to every man; and seeing that the gospel is preached in every season and in every nation. The word for called is used for summoning a man to a responsibility or to a feast or festival, or to a court and judgment. All three senses have some significance here, but it seems the responsibility as being a member of Gods army and the feast at the Word of God has added significance to the Christian. The call to a court judgment would have significance to everyone, but especially to the non-Christian.
Beloved is a term that grips the very soul of man. This is not only the nature of the call, but the nature of the caller and the nature of the one who responds to the call. In love is the real motive for response as well as the real motive for offering the way of escape (the scheme of redemption) for man. Man responds (becomes beloved in his own nature through regeneration) because he is beloved of God.
The power of God to keep the Christian from all adversaries and guard him from all his enemies is emphasized at the beginning and the end of the epistle. The apostasy described and warned against will certainly make life miserable for the saint, but this misery is nothing when compared to the glory that shall follow. Gods ability to keep his saints in their chosen state of redemption is without contest. As long as the individual saint chooses to remain in that group which God has pre-planned and predestined to be saved, he will be kept (Jud. 1:1) and guarded (Jud. 1:24) by God. Of course, the individual is free to leave this guarded group if he should choose, for God has not taken his will from him. The book of Jude becomes more than a strong statement of woe against the apostate, it becomes a warning to the saint not to choose the road of apostasy.
The determination and power of God to keep those who continue to choose to remain with Him is nowhere more clearly set forth than in the book of Romans. If God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 8:31-39.
Judes starting point for his discussion on apostasy is beautiful indeed, although briefly stated. The majestic grandeur of being kept for Jesus Christ culminates in Judes prayer for multiplied mercy, peace and love for his readers. Mercy is the sympathetic good performed on our behalf, then tranquility of soul is ours because this good (salvation) has been performed. His love is multiplied as we become like He is . . . altogether lovely.
In this section we already see a pattern of expression that Jude uses in a beautiful way: the triad. Three triads are used in these two verses: (1) Jude, servant, brother; (2) sanctified, preserved, called; (3) mercy, love, peace. More than a dozen such triplets are used in the epistle.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1, 2) Address and greeting.
(1) Jude.As to the Jade who here addresses us see Introduction, I.
The servant of Jesus Christ.Better, a servant of Jesus Christ. There is nothing to show that these words indicate an evangelist, although it is more than probable that he was one: his writing this Epistle is evidence of the fact. The words may have a side reference to the ungodly men against whom he writes, who are not servants of Jesus Christ. As he does not say that he is an Apostle, the inference is that he is not one. Contrast Rom. 1:1 (where see Note on servant); 1Co. 1:1; 2Co. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1Ti. 1:1; 2Ti. 1:1; 1Pe. 1:1 (where Apostle is used without servant); and Tit. 1:1; 2Pe. 1:1 (where Apostle is added to servant). Excepting St. John, whose characteristic reserve accounts for it, Apostles proclaim themselves to be such in stating their credentials. Hebrews and the Epistle of St. James must be set aside as doubtful, or be admitted as illustrations of the rule. Php. 1:1; 1Th. 1:1; and 2Th. 1:1 are not exceptions: St. Paul is there combined with others who are not Apostles. The same may be said of Phm. 1:1. Moreover, there St. Paul naturally avoids stating credentials: he wishes to appeal to Philemons affection (Phm. 1:8-9), not to his own authority.
And brother of James.This is added not merely to explain who he is, but his claim to be heard. It is almost incredible that an Apostle should have urged such a claim, and yet not have stated the much higher claim of his own office: the inference again is that the writer is not an Apostle. Only one James can be meant. After the death of James the brother of John, only one James appears in the Acts (Act. 12:17; Act. 15:13; Act. 21:18)James the Just, brother of our Lord (Mat. 13:15), and first Bishop of Jerusalem. (See Introduction, I.) The brother of so saintly a man, one of the pillars of the Church (Gal. 2:9), and holding so high an office, might claim the attention of Christians.
To them that are sanctified.A reading of very great authority compels us to substitute beloved for sanctified; and the whole should probably run thus: to those who are called, beloved in God the Father, and preserved for Jesus Christ. Some prefer to take in God the Father with both participles: beloved, and preserved for Jesus Christ, in God the Father. The love is such as has existed from the beginning and still continues.
Here, in the first verse, we have a couple of triplets: a three-fold designation of the writer himself, as Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, and a three-fold designation of his readers, as called, beloved, preserved. In the next verse we have another triplet.
By God the Father.Better, in God the Father. He is the sphere in which the love is displayed: it is in God that Christians love and are loved. The expression, beloved in God, is unique in the New Testament. St. Paul sometimes writes God our Father (Rom. 1:7; 1Co. 1:3, et al.), and at first this was the more common expression; sometimes God the Father (Gal. 1:1; Gal. 1:3, et al.).
And preserved in Jesus Christ.Better, preserved for Jesus Christ: i.e., preserved to be His in His kingdom. This preservation has gone on from the first, and continues (Joh. 17:2; Joh. 17:12; Joh. 17:24).
Called.The word is used, in St. Pauls sense, for all Christiansall who have been called to a knowledge of God and of the gospel. (Comp. Rom. 1:7; and see Note on 1Co. 1:24.)
(2) Mercy unto you, and peace, and love.Another triplet, which possibly looks back to the one just preceding: called by Gods mercy, preserved in peace, beloved in love. The addition and love is peculiar to this Epistle. Mercy and peace occur in the opening greetings of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 John. The three are in logical order here: mercy from God to man; hence peace between God and man; hence love of all towards all.
Be multiplied.By God. The word, as used in salutations, is peculiar to 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 1
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN ( Jud 1:1-2 ) 1:1-2 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James, sends this letter to the called who are beloved in God and kept by Jesus Christ. May mercy and peace and love he multiplied to you.
Few things tell more about a man than the way in which he speaks of himself; few things are more revealing than the titles by which he wishes to be known. Jude calls himself the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James. At once this tells us two things about him.
(i) Jude was a man well content with the second place. He was not nearly so well known as James; and he is content to be known as the brother of James. In this he was the same as Andrew. Andrew is Simon Peter’s brother ( Joh 6:8). He, too, was described by his relationship to a more famous brother. Jude and Andrew might well have been resentful of the brothers in whose shadow they had to live; but both had the great gift of gladly taking the second place.
(ii) The only title of honour which Jude would allow himself was the servant of Jesus Christ. The Greek is doulos ( G1401) , and it means more than servant, it means slave. That is to say, Jude regarded himself as having only one object and one distinction in life–to be for ever at the disposal of Jesus for service in his cause. The greatest glory which any Christian can attain is to be of use to Jesus Christ.
In this introduction Jude uses three words to describe Christians.
(i) Christians are those who are called by God. The Greek for to call is kalein ( G2564) ; and kalein ( G2564) has three great areas of use. (a) It is the word for summoning a man to office, to duty, and to responsibility. The Christian is summoned to a task, to duty, to responsibility in the service of Christ. (b) It is the word for summoning a man to a feast or a festival. It is the word for an invitation to a happy occasion. The Christian is the man who is summoned to the joy of being the guest of God. (c) It is the word for summoning a man to judgment. It is the word for calling a man to court that he may give account of himself The Christian is in the end summoned to appear before the judgment seat of Christ.
(ii) Christians are those who are beloved in God. It is this great fact which determines the nature of the call. The call to men is the call to be loved and to love. God calls men to a task, but that task is an honour, not a burden. God calls men to service, but it is the service of fellowship, not of tyranny. In the end God calls men to judgment, but it is the judgment of love as well as of justice.
(iii) Christians are those who are kept by Christ. The Christian is never left alone; Christ is always the sentinel of his life and the companion of his way.
THE CALL OF GOD ( Jud 1:1-2 continued) Before we leave this opening passage, let us think a little more about this calling of God and try to see something of what it means.
(i) Paul speaks about being called to be an apostle ( Rom 1:1; 1Co 1:1). In Greek the word is apostolos ( G652) ; it comes from the verb apostellein ( G649) , to send out, and an apostle is therefore, one who is sent out. That is to say, the Christian is the ambassador of Christ. He is sent out into the world to speak for Christ, to act for Christ, to live for Christ. By his life he commends, or fails to commend, Christ to others.
(ii) Paul speaks about being called to be saints ( Rom 1:7; 1Co 1:2). The word for saint is hagios ( G40) , which is also very commonly translated holy. Its root idea is difference. The Sabbath is holy because it is different from other days; God is supremely holy because he’s different from men. To be called to be a saint is to be called to be different. The world has its own standards and its own scale of values. The difference for the Christian is that Christ is the only standard and loyalty to Christ the only value.
(iii) The Christian is called according to the purpose of God ( Rom 8:28). God’s call goes out to every man, although every man does not accept it; and this means that for every man God has a purpose. The Christian is the man who submits himself to the purpose God has for him.
Paul has much to say about this calling of God, and we can set it down only very summarily. It sets before a man a great hope ( Eph 1:18; Eph 4:4). It should be a unifying influence binding men together by the conviction that they all have a part in the purpose of God ( Eph 4:4). It is an upward calling ( Php_3:14 ), setting a man’s feet on the way to the stars. It is a heavenly calling ( Heb 3:1), making a man think of the things which are invisible and eternal. It is a holy calling, a call to consecration to God. It is a calling which covers a man’s ordinary every-day task ( 1Co 7:20). It is a calling which does not alter because God does not change his mind ( Rom 11:29). It knows no human distinctions and cuts across the world’s classifications and scale of importances ( 1Co 1:26). It is something of which the Christian must be worthy ( Eph 4:1; 2Th 1:11); and all life must be one long effort to make it secure ( 2Pe 1:10).
The calling of God is the privilege, the challenge and the inspiration of the Christian life.
DEFENDING THE FAITH ( Jud 1:3 ) 1:3 Beloved, when I was in the midst of devoting all my energy to writing to you about the faith which we all share, I felt that I was compelled to write a letter to you to urge you to engage upon the struggle to defend the faith which was once and for all delivered to God’s consecrated people.
Here we have the occasion of the letter. Jude had been engaged on writing a treatise about the Christian faith; but there had come news that evil and misguided men had been spreading destructive teaching. The conviction had come to him that he must lay aside his treatise and write this letter.
Jude fully realized his duty to be the watchman of the flock of God. The purity of their faith was threatened and he rushed to defend both them and the faith. That involved setting aside the work on which he had been engaged; but often it is much better to write a tract for the times than a treatise for the future. It may be that Jude never again got the chance to write the treatise he had planned; but the fact is that he did more for the church by writing this urgent little letter than he could possibly have done by leaving a long treatise on the faith.
In this passage there are certain truths about the faith which we hold.
(i) The faith is something which is delivered to us. The facts of the Christian faith are not something which we have discovered for ourselves. In the true sense of the word they are tradition, something which has been handed down from generation to generation until it has come to us. They go back in an unbroken chain to Jesus Christ himself.
There is something to be added to that. The facts of the faith are indeed something which we have not discovered for ourselves. It is, therefore, true that the Christian tradition is not something handed down in the cold print of books; it is something which is passed on from person to person through the generations. The chain of Christian tradition is a living chain whose links are men and women who have experienced the wonder of the facts.
(ii) The Christian faith is something which is once and for all delivered to us. There is in it an unchangeable quality. That is not to say that each age has not to rediscover the Christian faith; but it does say that there is an unchanging nucleus in it–and the permanent centre of it is that Jesus Christ came into the world and lived and died to bring salvation to men.
(iii) The Christian faith is something which is entrusted to God’s consecrated people. That is to say, the Christian faith is not the possession of any one person but of the church. It comes down within the church, it is preserved within the church, and it is understood within the church.
(iv) The Christian faith is something which must be defended. Every Christian must be its defender. If the Christian tradition comes down from generation to generation, each generation must hand it on uncorrupted and unperverted. There are times when that is difficult. The word Jude uses for to defend is epagonizesthai ( G1864) , which contains the root of our English word agony. The defence of the faith may well be a costly thing; but that defence is a duty which falls on every generation of the Church.
THE PERIL FROM WITHIN ( Jud 1:4 ) 1:4 For certain men have wormed their way into the Church–long before this they were designated for judgment impious creatures they are–who twist the grace of God into a justification of blatant immorality and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Here is the peril which made Jude lay aside the treatise he was about to write and take up his pen to write this burning letter. The peril came from within the church.
Certain men, as the King James Version has it, had crept in unawares. The Greek (pareisduein, G3921) is a very expressive word. It is used of the spacious and seductive words of a clever pleader seeping gradually into the minds of a judge and jury; it is used of an outlaw slipping secretly back into the country from which he has been expelled; it is used of the slow and subtle entry of innovations into the life of state, which in the end undermine and break down the ancestral laws. It always indicates a stealthy insinuation of something evil into a society or situation.
Certain evil men had insinuated themselves into the church. They were the kind of men for whom judgment was waiting. They were impious creatures, godless in their thought and life. Jude picks out two characteristics about them.
(i) They perverted the grace of God into an excuse for blatant immorality. The Greek which we have translated blatant immorality is a grim and terrible word (aselgeia, G766) . The corresponding adjective is aselges ( G766) . Most men try to hide their sin; they have enough respect for common decency not to wish to be found out. But the aselges ( G766) is the man who is so lost to decency that he does not care who sees his sin. It is not that he arrogantly and proudly flaunts it; it is simply that he can publicly do the most shameless things, because he has ceased to care for decency at all.
These men were undoubtedly tinged with Gnosticism and its belief that, since the grace of God was wide enough to cover any sin, a man could sin as he liked. The more he sinned, the greater the grace, therefore, why worry about sin? Grace was being perverted into a justification for sin.
(ii) They denied our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. There is more than one way in which a man can deny Jesus Christ. (a) He can deny him in the day of persecution. (b) He can deny him for the sake of convenience. (c) He can deny him by his life and conduct. (d) He can deny him by developing false ideas about him.
If these men were Gnostics, they would have two mistaken ideas about Jesus. First, since the body, being matter, was evil, they would hold that Jesus only seemed to have a body and was a kind of spirit ghost in the apparent shape of a man. The Greek for “to seem” is dokein ( G1380) ; and these men were called Docetists. They would deny the real manhood of Jesus Christ. Second, they would deny his uniqueness. They believed that there were many stages between the evil matter of this world and the perfect spirit which is God; and they believed that Jesus was only one of the many stages on the way.
No wonder Jude was alarmed. He was faced with a situation in which there had wormed their way into the church men who were twisting the grace of God into a justification, and even a reason, for sinning in the most blatant way; and who denied both the manhood and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
THE DREADFUL EXAMPLES ( Jud 1:5-7 ) 1:5-7 It is my purpose to remind you–although you already possess full and final knowledge of all that matters–that, after the Lord had brought the people out of Egypt in safety, he subsequently destroyed those who were unbelieving; and that he has placed under guard in eternal chains in the abyss of darkness, to await the judgment which shall take place on the great day, the angels who did not keep their own rank but left their own proper habitation. Just so Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, who in the same way as these took their fill of sexual sin and strayed after perverted sexual immorality, are a warning by the way in which they paid the penalty of eternal fire. (1) The Fate Of Israel
Jude issues a warning to the evil men who were perverting the belief and conduct of the church. He tells them that he is, in fact, doing nothing other than remind them of things of which they are perfectly well aware. In a sense it is true to say that all preaching within the Christian church is not so much bringing to men new truth as confronting them with truth they already know, but have forgotten or are disregarding.
To understand the first two examples which Jude cites from history we must understand one thing. The evil men who were corrupting the church did not regard themselves as enemies of the church and of Christianity; they regarded themselves as the advanced thinkers, a cut above the ordinary Christian, the spiritual elite. Jude chooses his examples to make clear that, even if a man has received the greatest privileges, he may still fall away into disaster, and even those who have received the greatest privileges from God cannot consider themselves safe but must be on constant watch against the mistaken things.
The first example is from the history of Israel. He goes for his story to Num 13:1-33; Num 14:1-45. The mighty hand of God had delivered the people from slavery in Egypt. What greater act of deliverance could there be than that? The guidance of God had brought the people safely across the desert to the borders of the Promised Land. What greater demonstration of his Providence could there be than that? So, at the very borders of the Promised Land, at Kadesh-Barnea, spies were sent out to spy out the land before the final invasion took place. With the exception of Caleb and Joshua, the spies came back with the opinion that the dangers ahead were so terrible and the people so strong, that they could never win their way into the Promised Land. The people rejected the report of Caleb and Joshua, who were for going on, and accepted the report of those who insisted that the case was hopeless. This was a clear act of disobedience to God and of complete lack of faith in him. The consequence was that God gave sentence that of these people, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, all over twenty would never enter the Promised Land but would wander in the wilderness until they were dead ( Num 14:32-33; Num 32:10-13).
This was a picture which haunted the mind of both Paul and the writer to the Hebrews ( 1Co 10:5-11; Heb 3:18-19; Heb 4:2). It is the proof that even the man with the greatest privilege can meet with disaster before the end, if he falls away from obedience and lapses from faith. Johnstone Jeffrey tells of a great man who absolutely refused to have his life-story written before his death. “I have seen,” he said, “too many men fall out on the last lap.” John Wesley warned, “Let, therefore, none presume on past mercies, as if they were out of danger.” In his dream John Bunyan saw that even from the gates of heaven there was a way to hell.
Jude warns these men that, great as their privileges have been, they must still have a care lest disaster come upon them. It is a warning which each of us would do well to heed.
(2) The Fate Of The Angels
The second dreadful example which Jude takes is the fallen angels.
The Jews had a very highly developed doctrine of angels, the servants of God. In particular the Jews believed that every nation had its presiding angel. In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, Deu 32:8 reads, “When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.” That is to say, to each nation there was an angel.
The Jews believed in a fall of the angels and much is said about this in the Book of Enoch which is so often behind the thought of Jude. In regard to this there were two lines of tradition.
(i) The first saw the fall of the angels as due to pride and rebelliousness. That legend gathered especially round the name of Lucifer, the light-bringer, the son of the morning. As the King James Version has it, Isaiah writes, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” ( Isa 14:12). When the seventy returned from their mission and told Jesus of their successes, he warned them against pride, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” ( Luk 10:18). The idea was that there was civil war in heaven. The angels rose against God and were cast out; and Lucifer was the leader of the rebellion.
(ii) The second stream of tradition finds its scriptural echo in Gen 6:1-4. In this line of thought the angels, attracted by the beauty of mortal women, left heaven to seduce them and so sinned.
In the first case the fall of the angels was due to pride; in the second case it was due to lust for forbidden things.
In effect Jude takes the two ideas and puts them together. He says that the angels left their own rank; that is to say, they aimed at an office which was not for them. He also says that they left their own proper habitation; that is to say, they came to earth to live with the daughters of men.
All this seems strange to us; it moves in a world of thought and traditions from which we have moved away.
But Jude’s warning is clear. Two things brought ruin to the angels–pride and lust. Even although they were angels and heaven had been their dwelling-place, they none the less sinned and for their sin were reserved for judgment. To those reading Jude’s words for the first time the whole line of thought was plain, for Enoch had much to say about the fate of these fallen angels. So Jude was speaking to his people in terms that they could well understand and telling them that, if pride and lust ruined the angels in spite of all their privileges, pride and lust could ruin them. The evil men within the church were proud enough to think that they knew better than the church’s teaching and lustful enough to pervert the grace of God into a justification for blatant immorality. Whatever be the ancient background of his words, Jude’s warning is still valid. The pride which knows better than God and the desire for forbidden things are the way to ruin in time and in eternity.
(3) Sodom And Gomorrah
The third example Jude chose is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Notorious for their sins, these cities were obliterated by the fire of God. Sir George Adam Smith in The Historical Geography of the Holy Land points out that no incident in history ever made such an impression on the Jewish people, and that Sodom and Gomorrah are time and time again used in Scripture as the examples par excellence of the sin of man and the judgment of God; they are so used even by Jesus himself ( Deu 29:23; Deu 32:32; Amo 4:11; Isa 1:9; Isa 3:9; Isa 13:19; Jer 23:14; Jer 49:18; Jer 50:40; Zep 2:9; Lam 4:6; Eze 16:46; Eze 16:49; Eze 16:53; Eze 16:55; Mat 10:15; Mat 11:24; Luk 10:12; Luk 17:29; Rom 9:29; 2Pe 2:6; Rev 11:8). “The glare of Sodom and Gomorrah is flung down the whole length of Scripture history.”
The story of the final wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is told in Gen 19:1-11, and the tragic tale of their destruction in the passage immediately following ( Gen 19:12-28). The sin of Sodom is one of the most horrible stories in history. Ryle has called it a “repulsive incident.” The real horror of the incident is cloaked a little in the King James and English Revised Versions by a Hebrew turn of speech. Two angelic visitors had come to Lot. At his pressing invitation they came into his house to be his guests. When they were there, the inhabitants of Sodom surrounded the house, demanding that Lot should bring out his visitors that they should know them. In Hebrew to know is the word for sexual intercourse. It is said, for instance, that Adam knew his wife, and she conceived, and bore Cain ( Gen 4:1). What the men of Sodom were bent on was homosexual intercourse with Lot’s two visitors–sodomy, the word in which their sin is commemorated.
It was after this that Sodom and Gomorrah were obliterated from the face of the earth. The neighbouring cities were Zoar, Admah and Zeboim ( Deu 29:23; Hos 11:8). This disaster was localized in the dreadful desert in the region of the Dead Sea, a region which Sir George Adam Smith calls, “This awful hollow, this bit of the infernal regions come to the surface, this hell with the sun shining into it.” It was there that the cities were said to have been; and it was said that under that scorched and barren earth there still smouldered an eternal fire of destruction. The soil is bituminous with oil below, and Sir George Adam Smith con-lectures that what happened was this: “In this bituminous soil took place one of these terrible explosions and conflagrations which have broken out in the similar geology of North America. In such soil reservoirs of oil and gas are formed, and suddenly discharged by their own pressure or by earthquake. The gas explodes, carrying high into the air masses of oil which fall back in fiery rain, and are so inextinguishable that they float afire on water.” It was by such an eruption of fire that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. That awful desert was only a day’s journey from Jerusalem and men never forgot this divine judgment on sin.
So, then, Jude reminds these evil men of the fate of those who in ancient times defied the moral law of God. It is reasonable to suppose that those whom Jude attacks had also descended to sodomy and that they were perverting the grace of God to cover even this.
Jude is insisting that they should remember that sin and judgment go hand in hand, and that they should repent in time.
CONTEMPT FOR THE ANGELS ( Jud 1:8-9 ) 1:8-9 In the same way these, too, with their dreams, defile the flesh, and set at naught the celestial powers, and speak evil of the angelic glories. When the archangel Michael himself was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, he did not venture to launch against him an evil-speaking accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
Jude begins this passage by comparing the evil men with the false prophets whom Scripture condemns. Deu 13:1-5 sets down what is to be done with “the prophet or the dreamer of dreams” who corrupts the nations and seduces the people, from their loyalty to God. Such a prophet is to be mercilessly killed. These men whom Jude attacks are false prophets, dreamers of false dreams, seducers of the people, and must be treated as such. Their false teaching issued in two things.
(i) It made them defile the flesh. We have already seen the twofold direction of their teaching on the flesh. First, the flesh was entirely evil, and, therefore, of no importance; and so the instincts of the body could be given their way without control. Second, the grace of God was all-forgiving and all-sufficient and therefore, sin did not matter since grace would forgive every sin. Sin was only the means whereby grace was given its opportunity to operate.
(ii) They despised angels. Celestial powers and angelic glories are names for ranks of angels within the angelic hierarchy. This follows immediately after the citing of Sodom and Gomorrah as dreadful examples; and part of the sin of Sodom was the desire of its people to misuse its angelic visitors ( Gen 19:1-11). The men Jude attacks spoke evil of the angels. To prove how terrible a thing that was Jude cites an instance from an apocryphal book, The Assumption of Moses. One of the strange things about Jude is that he so often makes his quotations from these apocryphal books. Such quotations seem strange to us; but these books were very widely used at the time when Jude was writing and the quotations would be very effective.
The story in The Assumption of Moses runs as follows. The strange story of the death of Moses is told in Deu 34:1-6. The Assumption of Moses goes on to add the further story that the task of burying the body of Moses was given to the archangel Michael. The devil disputed with Michael for possession of the body. He based his claim on two grounds. Moses’ body was matter; matter was evil; and, therefore, the body belonged to him, for matter was his domain. Second, Moses was a murderer, for had not he slain the Egyptian whom he saw smiting the Hebrew ( Exo 2:11-12). And, if he was a murderer, the devil had a claim on his body. The point Jude is making is this. Michael was engaged on a task given him by God; the devil was seeking to stop him and was making claims he had no right to make. But even in a collection of circumstances like that Michael spoke no evil of the devil but simply said, “The Lord rebuke you!” If the greatest of the good angels refused to speak evil of the greatest of the evil angels, even in circumstances like that, surely no human being may speak evil of any angel.
What the men Jude is attacking were saying about the angels we do not know. Perhaps they were saying that they did not exist; perhaps they were saying they were evil. This passage means very little to us, but no doubt it would be a weighty rebuke to those to whom Jude addressed it.
THE GOSPEL OF THE FLESH ( Jud 1:10 ) 1:10 But these people speak evil of everything which they do not understand, whereas they allow themselves to be corrupted by the knowledge which their instincts give them, living at the mercy of their instincts, like beasts without reason.
Jude says two things about the evil men whom he is attacking.
(i) They criticize everything which they do not understand. Anything which is out of their orbit and their experience they disregard as worthless and irrelevant. “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned” ( 1Co 2:14). They have no spiritual discernment, and, therefore, they are blind to, and contemptuous of, all spiritual realities.
(ii) They allow themselves to be corrupted by the things they do understand. What they do understand are the fleshly instincts which they share with the brute beasts. Their way of life is to allow these instincts to have their way; their values are fleshly values. Jude describes men who have lost all awareness of spiritual things and for whom the things demanded by the animal instincts are the only standards.
The terrible thing is that the first condition is the direct result of the second. The tragedy is that no man is born without a sense of the spiritual things but can lose that sense until for him the spiritual things cease to exist. A man may lose any faculty, if he refuses to use it. We discover that with such simple things as games and skills. If we give up playing a game, we lose the ability to play it. If we give up practising a skill–such as playing the piano–we lose it. We discover that in such things as abilities. We may know something of a foreign language, but if we never speak or read it, we lose it. Every man can hear the voice of God; and every man has the animal instincts on which, indeed, the future existence of the race depends. But, if he consistently refuses to listen to God and makes his instincts the sole dynamic of his conduct, in the end he will be unable to hear the voice of God and will have nothing left to be his master but his brute desires. It is a terrible thing for a man to reach a stage where he is deaf to God and blind to goodness; and that is the stage which the men whom Jude attacks had reached.
LESSONS FROM HISTORY ( Jud 1:11 ) 1:11 Woe to them because they walk in the way of Cain; they fling themselves into the error of Balaam; they perish in Korah’s opposition to God.
Jude now goes to Hebrew history for parallels to the wicked men of his own day; and from it he draws the examples of three notorious sinners.
(i) First, there is Cain, the murderer of his brother Abel ( Gen 4:1-15). In Hebrew tradition Cain stood for two things. (a) He was the first murderer in the world’s history; and, as The Wisdom of Solomon has it, “he himself perished in the fury wherewith he murdered his brother” ( Wis_10:3 ). It may well be that Jude is implying that those who delude others are nothing other than murderers of the souls of men and, therefore, the spiritual descendants of Cain. (b) But in Hebrew tradition Cain came to stand for something more than that. In Philo he stands for selfishness. In the Rabbinic teaching he is the type of the cynical man. In the Jerusalem Targum he is depicted as saying: “There is neither judgment nor judge; there is no other world; no good reward will be given to the good and no vengeance taken on the wicked; nor is there any pity in the creation or the government of the world.” To the Hebrew thinkers Cain was the cynical, materialistic unbeliever who believed neither in God nor in the moral order of the world and who, therefore, did exactly as he liked. So Jude is charging his opponents with defying God and denying the moral order of the world. It remains true that the man who chooses to sin has still to reckon with God and to learn, always with pain and sometimes with tragedy, that no man can defy the moral order of the world with impunity.
(ii) Second, there is Balaam. In Old Testament thought, in Jewish teaching and even in the New Testament ( Rev 2:14) Balaam is the great example of those who taught Israel to sin. In the Old Testament there are two stories about him. One is quite clear, and very vivid and dramatic. The other is more shadowy, but much more terrible; and it is it which left its mark on Hebrew thought and teaching.
The first is in Num 22:1-41; Num 23:1-30; Num 24:1-25. There it is told how Balak attempted to persuade Balaam to curse the people of Israel, for he feared their power, five times offering him large rewards. Balaam refused to be persuaded by Balak, but his covetousness stands out and it is clear that only the fear of what God would do to him kept him from striking a dreadful bargain. Balaam already emerges as a detestable character.
In Num 25:1-18 there is the second story. Israel is seduced into the worship of Baal with dreadful and repulsive moral consequences. As we read later ( Num 31:8; Num 31:16), it was Balaam who was responsible for that seduction, and he perished miserably because he taught others to sin.
Out of this composite story Balaam stands for two things. (a) He stands for the covetous man who was prepared to sin in order to gain reward. (b) He stands for the evil man who was guilty of the greatest of all sins–that of teaching others to sin. So Jude is declaring of the wicked men of his own day that they are ready to leave the way of righteousness to make gain; and that they are teaching others to sin. To sin for the sake of gain is bad; but to teach another to sin is the worst of all.
(iii) Third, there was Korah. His story is in Num 16:1-35. The sin of Korah was that he rebelled against the guidance of Moses when the sons of Aaron and the tribe of Levi were made the priests of the nation. That was a decision which Korah was not willing to accept; he wished to exercise a function which he had no right to exercise; and when he did so he perished terribly and all his companions in wickedness with him. Korah stands for the man who refuses to accept authority and reaches out for things which he has no right to have. So Jude is charging his opponents with defying the legitimate authority of the church, and of, thereto re, preferring their own way to the way of God. We should remember that if we take certain things which pride incites us to take, the consequences can be disastrous.
THE PICTURE OF WICKED MEN ( Jud 1:12-16 )
1:12-16 These people are hidden rocks which threaten to wreck your Love Feasts. These are the people who at your feasts revel with their own cliques without a qualm. They have no feeling of responsibility to anyone except themselves. They are clouds which drop no water but are blown past by the wind. They are fruitless trees in autumn’s harvest time, twice dead and torn up by the roots. They are wild sea waves, frothing out their own shameless deeds. They are wandering stars and the abyss of darkness has been prepared for them for ever. It was of these, too, that Enoch, who was the seventh from Adam, prophesied when he said:
Behold the Lord has come with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all and to convict all the impious for all the deeds of their impiousness, which they have impiously committed, and for the harsh things which impious sinners have said against him.
For these people are grumblers. They querulously complain against the part in life which God has allotted to them. Their conduct is governed by their desires. Their mouths speak swelling words. They toady to men for what they can get out of it.
This is one of the great passages of invective of the New Testament. It is blazing moral indignation at its hottest. As Moffatt puts it: “Sky, land and sea are ransacked for illustrations of the character of these men.” Here is a series of vivid pictures, every one with significance. Let us take them one by one.
(i) They are like hidden rocks which threaten to wreck the Love Feasts of the Church. This is the one case in which there is doubt about what Jude is actually saying but of one thing there is no doubt–the evil men were a peril to the Love Feasts. The Love Feast, the Agape ( G26) , was one of the earliest features of the Church. It was a meal of fellowship held on the Lord’s Day. To it everyone brought what he could, and all shared alike. It was a lovely idea that the Christians in each little house church should sit down on the Lord’s Day to eat in fellowship together. No doubt there were some who could bring much and others who could bring only little. For many of the slaves it was perhaps the only decent meal they ever ate.
But very soon the Agape ( G26) began to go wrong. We can see it going wrong in the church at Corinth, when Paul declares that at the Corinthian Love Feasts there is nothing but division. They are divided into cliques and sections; some have too much, and others starve; and the meal for some has become a drunken revel ( 1Co 11:17-22). Unless the Agape ( G26) was a true fellowship, it was a travesty, and very soon it had begun to belie its name.
Jude’s opponents were making a travesty of the Love Feasts. The Revised Standard Version says that he calls them “blemishes on your love feasts” ( Jud 1:12); and that agrees with the parallel passage in Second Peter–“blots and blemishes” ( 2Pe 2:13). We have translated Jude’s expression “hidden rocks.”
The difficulty is that Peter and Jude do not use the same word, although they use words which are very similar. The word in Second Peter is spilos ( G4696) , which unquestionably means a blot or spot; but the word in Jude is spilas ( G4694) , which is very rare. Just possibly it may mean a blot, because in later Greek it could be used for the spots and markings on an opal stone. But in ordinary Greek by far its most common meaning was a submerged, or half-submerged, rock on which a ship could be easily ship-wrecked. We think that here the second meaning is much more likely.
In the Love Feast people were very close together in heart and there was the kiss of peace. These wicked men were using the Love Feasts as a cloak under which to gratify their lusts. It is a dreadful thing, if men enter into the church and use the opportunities which its fellowship gives for their own perverted ends. These men were like sunken rocks on which the fellowship of the Love Feasts was in danger of being wrecked.
THE SELFISHNESS OF WICKED MEN ( Jud 1:12-16 continued) (ii) These wicked men revel in their own cliques and have no feeling of responsibility for anyone except themselves. These two things go together for they both stress their essential selfishness.
(a) They revel in their own cliques without a qualm. This is exactly the situation which Paul condemns in First Corinthians. The Love Feast was supposed to be an act of fellowship; and the fellowship was demonstrated by the sharing of all things. Instead of sharing, the wicked men kept to their own clique and kept to themselves all they had. In First Corinthians Paul actually goes the length of saying that the Love Feast could become a drunken revel in which every man grabbed at all that he could get ( 1Co 11:21). No man can ever claim to know what church membership means, if in the church he is out for what he can get and remains within his own little group.
(b) We have translated the next phrase: “They have no feeling of responsibility for anyone except themselves.” The Greek literally means “shepherding themselves.” The duty of a leader of the Church is to be a shepherd of the flock of God ( Act 20:28). The false shepherd cared far more for himself than for the sheep which were supposed to be within his care. Ezekiel describes the false shepherds from whom their privileges were to be taken away: “As I live, says the Lord God, because my sheep have become a prey and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd; and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep…. Behold I am against the shepherds; and I will require my sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep” ( Eze 34:8-10). The man who feels no responsibility for the welfare of anyone except himself stands condemned.
So, then, Jude condemns the selfishness which destroys fellowship and the lack of the sense of responsibility for others.
(iii) The wicked men are like clouds blown past by the wind, which drop no rain and like trees in harvest time which have no fruit. These two phrases go together, for they describe people who make great claims but are essentially useless. There were times in Palestine when people would pray for rain. At such a time a cloud might pass across the sky, bringing with it the promise of rain. But there were times when the promise was only an illusion, the cloud was blown on and the rain never came. In any harvest time there were trees which looked as if they were heavy with fruit but which, when men came to gather from them, gave no fruit at all.
At the heart of this lies a great truth. Promise without performance is useless and in the New Testament nothing is so unsparingly condemned as uselessness. No amount of outward show or fine words will take the place of usefulness to others. As it has been put: “If a man is not good for something, he is good for nothing.”
THE FATE OF DISOBEDIENCE ( Jud 1:12-16 continued) Jude goes on to use a vivid picture of these evil men. “They are like wild sea waves frothing out their own shameless deeds.” The picture is this. After a storm, when the waves have been lashing the shore with their frothing spray and their spume, there is always left on the shore a fringe of seaweed and driftwood and all kinds of unsightly litter from the sea. That is always an unlovely scene. But in the case of one sea it is grimmer than in any other. The waters of the Dead Sea can be whipped up, into waves, and these waves, too, cast up driftwood on the shore; but in this instance there is a unique circumstance. The waters of the Dead Sea are so impregnated with salt that they strip the bark of any driftwood in them; and, when such wood is cast up on the shore, it gleams bleak and white, more like dried bones than wood. The deeds of the wicked men are like the useless and unsightly litter which the waves leave scattered on the beach after a storm and resemble the skeleton-like relics of Dead Sea storms. The picture vividly portrays the ugliness of the deeds of Jude’s opponents.
Jude uses still another picture. The wicked men are like the wandering stars that are kept in the abyss of darkness for their disobedience. This is a picture directly taken from the Book of Enoch. In that book the stars and the angels are sometimes identified; and there is a picture of the fate of the stars who, disobedient to God, left their appointed orbit and were destroyed. In his journey through the, earth Enoch came to a place where he saw, “neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible.” He goes on: “And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. Then I said, ‘For what sin are they bound, and on account of what have they been cast in hither?’ Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me and who was chief over them, ‘Enoch, why dost thou ask and why art thou eager for the truth? These are the numbers of the stars of heaven which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated'” (Enoch 21: 1-6). The fate of the wandering stars is typical of the fate of the man who disobeys God’s commandments and, as it were, takes his own way.
Jude then confirms all this with a prophecy; but the prophecy is again taken from Enoch. The actual passage runs: “And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly; and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Enoch 1: 9).
This quotation has raised many questions in regard to Jude and Enoch. There is no doubt that in the days of Jude, and in the days of Jesus, Enoch was a very popular book which every pious Jew would know and read. Ordinarily, when the New Testament writers wish to confirm their words, they do so with a quotation from the Old Testament, using it as the word of God. Are we then to regard Enoch as sacred Scripture, since Jude uses it exactly as he would have used one of the prophets? Or, are we to take the view of which Jerome speaks, and say that Jude cannot be Scripture, because it makes the mistake of using as Scripture a book which is, in fact, not Scripture?
We need waste no time upon this debate. The fact is that Jude, a pious Jew, knew and loved the Book of Enoch and had grown up in a circle where it was regarded with respect and even reverence; and he takes his quotation from it perfectly naturally, knowing that his readers would recognize it, and respect it. He is simply doing what all the New Testament writers do, as every writer must in every age, and speaking to men in language which they will recognize and understand.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EVIL MEN ( Jud 1:12-16 continued) In Jud 1:16 Jude sets down three last characteristics of the evil men.
(i) They are grumblers, for ever discontented with the life which God has allotted to them. In this picture he uses two words, one which was very familiar to his Jewish readers and one which was very familiar to his Greek readers.
(a) The first is goggustes ( G1113) . (gg in Greek is pronounced ng). The word describes the discontented voices of the murmurers and is the same as is so often used in the Greek Old Testament for the murmurings of the children of Israel against Moses as he led them through the wilderness ( Exo 15:24; Exo 17:3; Num 14:29). Its very sound describes the low mutter of resentful discontent which rose from the rebellious people. These wicked men in the time of Jude are the modern counterparts of the murmuring children of Israel in the desert, people full of sullen complaints against the guiding hand of God.
(b) The second is mempsimoiros ( G3202) . It is made up of two Greek words, memphesthai, which means to blame and moira, which means one’s allotted fate or life. A mempsimoiros ( G3202) was a man who was for ever grumbling about life in general. Theophrastus was the great master of the Greek character sketch, and he has a mocking study of the mempsimoiros ( G3202) , which is worth quoting in full:
Querulousness is an undue complaining about one’s lot; the
querulous man will say to him that brings him a portion from his
friend’s table: “You begrudged me your soup or your collops, or
you would have asked me to dine with you in person.” When
his mistress is kissing him he says, “I wonder whether you kiss me
so warmly from your heart.” He is displeased with Zeus, not
because he sends no rain, but because he has been so tong about
sending it. When he finds a purse in the street, it is: “Ah! but I
never found a treasure.” When he has bought a slave cheap with
much importuning the seller, he cries: “I wonder if my bargain’s
too cheap to be good.” When they bring him the good news
that he has a son born to him, then it is: “If you add that I
have lost half my fortune, you’ll speak the truth.” Should this
man win a suit-at-law by a unanimous verdict, he is sure to find
fault with his speech-writer for omitting so many of the pleas.
And if a subscription has been got up for him among his friends,
and one of them says to him: “You can cheer up now,” he will say:
“What? when I must repay each man his share, and be beholden
to him into the bargain?”
Here, vividly drawn by Theophrastus’ subtle pen, is the picture of a man who can find something to grumble about in any situation. He can find some fault with the best of bargains, the kindest of deeds, the most complete of successes, the richest of good fortune. “There is great gain in godliness with contentment” ( 1Ti 6:6); but the evil men are chronically discontented with life and with the place in life that God has given to them. There are few people more unpopular than chronic grumblers and all such might do well to remember that such grumbling is in its own way an insult to God.
(ii) Jude reiterates a point about these wicked men, which he has made again and again–their conduct is governed by their desires. To them self-discipline and self-control are nothing; to them the moral law is only a burden and a nuisance; honour and duty have no claim upon them; they have no desire to serve and no sense of responsibility. Their one value is pleasure and their one dynamic is desire. If all men were like that, the world would be in complete chaos.
(iii) They speak with pride and arrogance, yet at the same time they are ready to pander to the great, if they think that they can get anything out of it. It is perfectly possible for a man at one and the same time to be a bombastic creature towards the people he wishes to impress and a flattering lick-spittle to the people whom he thinks important. Jude’s opponents are glorifiers of themselves and flatterers of others, as they think the occasion demands; and their descendants are sometimes still among us.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ERROR (1) ( Jud 1:17-19 ) 1:17-19 But you, beloved, you must remember the words which were once spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; you must remember that they said to us: “In the last time there will be mockers, whose conduct is governed by their own impious desires.” These are the people who set up divisions–fleshly creatures, without the Spirit.
Jude points out to his own people that nothing has happened which they might not have expected. The apostles had given warning that in the last times just such evil men as are now among them would come. The actual words of Jude’s quotation are not in any New Testament book. He may be doing any one of three things. He may be quoting some apostolic book which we no longer possess. He may be quoting, not a book, but some oral tradition of the apostolic preaching; or some sermon which he himself had heard from the apostles. He may be giving the general sense of a passage like 1Ti 4:1-3. In any event he is telling his people that error was only to be expected in the church. From this passage we can see certain of the characteristics of these evil men.
(i) They mock at goodness and their conduct is governed by their own evil desires. The two things go together. These opponents of Jude had two characteristics, as we have already seen. They believed the body, being matter, was evil; and that, therefore, it made no difference if a man sated its desires. Further, they argued that, since grace could forgive any sin, sin did not matter. These heretics had a third characteristic. They believed that they were the advanced thinkers; and they regarded those who observed the old moral standards as old-fashioned and out of date.
That point of view is by no means dead. There are still those who believe that the once–accepted standards of morality and fidelity, especially in matters of sex, are quite out of date. There is a terrible text in the Old Testament: “The fool says in his heart, There is no God” ( Psa 53:1). In that text fool does not mean the brainless man; it means the man who is playing the fool. And the fact that he says there is no God is entirely due to wishful thinking. He knows that, if there is a God, he is wrong and can look for judgment; therefore, he eliminates him. In the last analysis those who eliminate the moral law and give free rein to their passions and desires, do so because they want to do as they like. They listen to themselves instead of listening to God–and they forget that there will come a day when they will be compelled to listen to him.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ERROR (2) ( Jud 1:17-19 continued) (ii) These evil men have a second characteristic. They set up divisions–they are fleshly creatures, without the Spirit. Here is a most significant thought–to set up divisions within the church is always sin. These men set up divisions in two ways.
(a) As we have already seen, even at the Love Feasts they had their own little cliques. By their conduct they were steadily destroying fellowship within the church. They were drawing a circle to shut men out instead of drawing a circle to take them in.
(b) But they went further. There were certain thinkers in the early church who had a way of looking at human nature which essentially split men into two classes. To understand this we must know something of Greek psychology. To the Greek man was body (soma, G4983) , soul (psuche, G5590) and spirit (pneuma, G4151) . Soma ( G4983) was simply man’s physical construction. Psuche ( G5590) is more difficult to understand. To the Greeks soul, psuche ( G5590) , was simply physical life; everything that lived and breathed had psuche ( G5590) . Pneuma ( G4151) , spirit, was quite different, it belonged to man alone, and was that which made him a thinking creature, kin to God, able to speak to God and to hear him.
These thinkers went on to argue that all men possessed psuche ( G5590) , but very few really possessed pneuma ( G4151) . Only the really intellectual, the elite, possessed pneuma ( G4151) ; and, therefore, only the very few could rise to real religion. The rest must be content to walk on the lower levels of religious experience.
They, therefore, divided men into two classes. There were the psuchikoi ( G5591) , who were physically alive but intellectually and spiritually dead. We might call them the fleshly creatures. All they possessed was flesh and blood life; intellectual progress and spiritual experience were beyond them. There were the pneumatikoi ( G4152) , who were capable of real intellectual knowledge, real knowledge of God and real spiritual experience. Here was the creation of an intellectual and spiritual aristocracy over against the common herd of men.
Further, these people who believed themselves to be the pneumatikoi ( G4152) , believed that they were exempt from all the ordinary laws governing a man’s conduct. Ordinary people might have to observe the accepted standards but they were above that. For them sin did not exist; they were so advanced that they could do anything and be none the worse. We may well remember that there are still people who believe that they are above the laws, who say in their hearts that it could never happen to them and believe that they can get away with anything.
We can now see how cleverly Jude deals with these people who say that the rest of the world are the psuchikoi ( G5591) , while they are the pneumatikoi ( G4152) . Jude takes their words and reverses them. “It is you,” he thunders at them, “who are the psuchikoi ( G5591) , the flesh-dominated; it is you who possess no pneuma ( G4151) , no real knowledge and no experience of God.” Jude is saying to these people that, although they think themselves the only truly religious people, they have no real religion at all. Those whom they despise are, in fact, much better than they are themselves.
The truth about these so-called intellectual and spiritual people was that they desired to sin and twisted religion into a justification for sin.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GOODNESS ( Jud 1:20-21 ) 1:20-21 But you, beloved, must build yourselves up on the foundation of your most holy faith; you must pray in the Holy Spirit; you must keep yourselves in the love of God; while you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ which will bring you to life eternal.
In the previous passage Jude described the characteristics of error, here he describes the characteristics of goodness.
(i) The good man builds up his life on the foundation of the most holy faith. That is to say, the life of the Christian is founded, not on something which he manufactured himself, but on something which he received. There is a chain in the transmission of the faith. The faith came from Jesus to the apostles; it came from the apostles to the church; and it comes from the church to us. There is something tremendous here. It means that the faith which we hold is not merely someone’s personal opinion; it is a revelation which came from Jesus Christ and was preserved and transmitted within his church, always under the care and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from generation to generation.
That faith is a most holy faith. Again and again we have seen the meaning of this word holy. Its root meaning is different. That which is holy is different from other things, as the priest is different from other worshippers, the Temple different from other buildings, the Sabbath different from other days and God supremely different from men.
Our faith is different in two ways. (a) It is different from other faiths and from philosophies in that it is not man-made but God-given, not opinion but revelation, not guessing but certainty. (b) It is different in that it has the power to make those who believe it different. It is not only a mind-changer but also a life-changer; not only an intellectual belief but also a moral dynamic.
(ii) The good man is a man of prayer. It has been put this way: “Real religion means dependence.” The essence of religion is the admission of our total dependence on God; and prayer is the acknowledging of that dependence, and the going to God for the help we need. As Moffatt has it in a magnificent definition: “Prayer is love in need appealing to love in power.” The Christian must be a man of prayer for at least two reasons. (a) He knows that he must test everything by the will of God and, therefore, he must take everything to God for his approval. (b) He knows that of himself he can do nothing but that with God all things are possible and, therefore, he must ever be taking his insufficiency to God’s sufficiency.
Prayer, says Jude, is to be in the Holy Spirit. What he means is this. Our human prayers are at least sometimes bound to be selfish and blind. It is only when the Holy Spirit takes full possession of us that our desires are so purified that our prayers are right. The truth is that as Christians we are bound to pray to God, but he alone can teach us how to pray and what to pray for.
(iii) The good man keeps himself in the love of God. What Jude is thinking of here is the old covenant relationship between God and his people as described in Exo 24:1-8. God came to his people promising that he would be their God and they would be his people; but that relationship depended on their accepting and obeying the law which he gave them. “God’s love,” Moffatt comments, “has its own terms of communion.” It is true in one sense that we can never drift beyond God’s love and care; but it is also true that, if we desire to remain in close communion with God, we must give him the perfect love and the perfect obedience which must ever go hand in hand.
(iv) The good man waits with expectation. He waits for the coming of Jesus Christ in mercy, love and power; for he knows that Christ’s purpose for him is to bring him to life eternal, which is nothing other than the life of God himself.
RECLAIMING THE LOST ( Jud 1:22-23 ) 1:22-23 Some of them you must argue out of their error, while they are still wavering. Others you must rescue by snatching them out of the fire. Others you must pity and fear at the same time, hating the garment stained by the flesh.
Different translators give differing translations of this passage. The reason is that there is much doubt as to what the true Greek text is. We have given the translation which we believe to be nearest to the sense of the passage.
Even to the worst heretics, even to those most far gone in error and to those whose beliefs are most dangerous, the Christian has a binding duty not to destroy but to save. His aim must be, not to banish them from the Christian church, but to win them back into the Christian fellowship. James Denney said that, to put the matter at its simplest, Jesus came to make bad men good. Sir John Seeley said: “When the power of reclaiming the lost dies out of the church, it ceases to be the church.” As we have taken this passage, Jude divides the troublers of the church into three classes, to each of whom a different approach is necessary.
(i) There are those who are flirting with falsehood. They are obviously attracted by the wrong way and are on the brink of committing themselves to error, but are still hesitating before taking the final step. They must be argued out of their error while there is time. From this two things emerge as a duty.
(a) We must study to be able to defend the faith and to give a reason for the hope that is in us. We must know what we believe so that we can meet error with truth; and we must make ourselves able to defend the faith in such a way that our graciousness and sincerity may win others to it. To do this we must banish all uncertainty from our minds and all arrogance and intolerance from our approach to others.
(b) We must be ready to speak in time. Many a person would have been saved from error of thought and of action, if someone else had only spoken in time. Sometimes we hesitate to speak, but there are many times when silence is cowardly and can cause more harm than speech could ever cause. One of the greatest tragedies in life is when someone comes to us and says, “I would never have been in the mess I am now in, if someone–you, perhaps–had only spoken to me.”
(ii) There are those who have to be snatched from the fire. They have actually started out on the wrong way and have to be stopped, as it were, forcibly, and even against their will. It is all very well to say that we must leave a man his freedom and that he has a right to do what he likes. All these things are in one sense true, but there are times when a man must be even forcibly saved from himself.
(iii) There are those whom we must pity and fear at one and the same time. Here Jude is thinking of something which is always true. There is danger to the sinner; but there is also danger to the rescuer. He who would cure an infectious disease runs the risk of infection. Jude says that we must hate the garment stained by the flesh. Almost certainly he is thinking here of the regulations in Lev 13:47-52, where it is laid down that the garment worn by a person discovered to be suffering from leprosy must be burned. The old saying remains true–we must love the sinner but hate the sin. Before a man can rescue others, he must himself be strong in the faith. His own feet must be firm on the dry land before he can throw a lifebelt to the man who is likely to be swept away. The simple fact is that the rescue of those in error is not for everyone to attempt. Those who would win others for Christ must themselves be very sure of him; and those who would fight the disease of sin must themselves have the strong antiseptic of a healthy faith. Ignorance can never be met with ignorance, nor even with partial knowledge; it can be met only by the affirmation, “I know whom I have believed.”
THE FINAL ASCRIPTION OF PRAISE ( Jud 1:24-25 ) 1:24-25 Unto him who is able to keep you from slipping and to make you stand blameless and exultant in the presence of his glory, to the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, at this present time, and for all time. Amen.
Jude comes to an end with a tremendous ascription of praise.
Three times in the New Testament praise is given to the God who is able. In Rom 16:25 Paul gives praise to the God who is able to strengthen us. God is the one person who can give us a foundation for life which nothing and no one can ever shake. In Eph 3:20 Paul gives praise to the God who is able to do far more than we can ever ask or even dream of. He is the God whose grace no man has every exhausted and on whom no claim can ever be too much.
Here Jude offers his praise to the God who is able.
(i) God is able to keep us from slipping. The word is aptaistos ( G679) . It is used both of a sure-footed horse which does not stumble and of a man who does not fall into error. “He will not let your foot be moved,” or as the Scottish metrical version has it, “Thy foot he’ll not let slide” ( Psa 121:3). To walk with God is to walk in safety even on the most dangerous and the most slippery path. In mountaineering climbers are roped together so that even if the inexperienced climber should slip, the skilled mountaineer can take his weight and save him. Even so, when we bind ourselves to God, he keeps us safe.
(ii) He can make us stand blameless in the presence of his glory. The word for blameless is amomos ( G299) . This is characteristically a sacrificial word; and it is commonly and technically used of an animal which is without spot or blemish and is therefore fit to be offered to God. The amazing thing is that when we submit ourselves to God, his grace can make our lives nothing less than a sacrifice fit to offer to him.
(iii) He can bring us into his presence exultant. Surely the natural way to think of entry into the presence of God is in fear and in shame. But by the work of Jesus Christ and in the grace of God, we know that we can go to God with joy and with all fear banished. Through Jesus Christ, God the stern Judge has become known to us as God the loving Father.
We note one last thing. Usually we associate the word Saviour with Jesus Christ, but here Jude attaches it to God. He is not alone in this, for God is often called Saviour in the New Testament ( Luk 1:47; 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:3; 1Ti 4:10; Tit 1:3; Tit 2:10; Tit 3:4). So we end with the great and comforting certainty that at the back of everything there is a God whose name is Saviour. The Christian has the joyous certainty that in this world he lives in the love of God and that in the next world he goes to that love. The love of God is at once the atmosphere and the goal of all his living.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
FURTHER READING
Jude
C. Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; G)
C. E. B. Cranfield, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Tch; E)
J. B. Mayor, The Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude (MmC; G)
J. Moffatt, The General Epistles: James, Peter and Jude (MC; E)
Abbreviations
ICC: International Critical Commentary
MC: Moffatt Commentary
MmC: Macmillan Commentary
Tch: Torch Commentary
E: English Text
G: Greek Text
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
Introductory Greeting.
‘Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to those who are called ones, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.’
Jude writes as a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James. A similar approach is found in James’ letter, where James describes himself as ‘a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ’.
This would suggest that it was not from one of ‘the twelve’, otherwise we would have expected him to mention his Apostleship (see also Jud 1:17 which supports this suggestion that he is not one of the twelve), and his use of the name James, in such a way as to indicate that he was such a recognisable figure that no further appellation need be given, points to James of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord (Gal 1:19).
In view of this, and in view of the fact that the letter was recognised as Scripture almost from the beginning (it is mentioned in the Muratorian canon and by Tertullian), it would appear to suggest that it was written by Jude, the Lord’s brother, who was accepted as having Apostolic status along with James (1Co 9:5). One of Jesus’ other brothers was certainly called Jude (Judas – Mar 6:3), and it would seem unquestionable that it was because the later church did accept these identifications as genuine that their letters were accepted as part of the New Testament. There is no good reason for doubting that he was Joseph’s son through Mary (Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3).
That he does not in fact claim the title ‘brother of our Lord’ would support this last idea. Had the relationship merely have been one of cousinship the relationship could have been claimed in view of the general recognition of them by the designation ‘the Lord’s brothers’ 1Co 9:5), just as in the end we are all called ‘His brothers’ (Heb 2:11-12). But the recognition of Who Jesus really was meant that none of Jesus’ real brothers of the half-blood felt it right to claim kinship. They recognised that He was not born of Joseph, and was therefore only their half-brother, and that even then He was more than a brother. He was their Lord. Others could call them ‘brothers of the Lord’. They would not claim it for themselves, for they reverenced Him too greatly.
(We should perhaps note that James and John, for example, were probably cousins of our Lord – Joh 19:25 with Mat 27:56 – although they are never described as related to the Lord. So we are probably to take ‘brothers of the Lord’ literally. They were sons of Mary).
The title ‘servant’ is both a humble and an honourable one. Moses and Joshua were given the revered title, ‘the Servant of the LORD’ (see e.g. Jos 1:2; Jos 1:13; Jos 24:29). The Psalmist could speak of ‘Abraham His servant’ (Psa 105:6). And we have ‘David my servant’ in Isa 37:35. And supremely above all we have the great Servant of the Lord (Isa 42:1-4; Isa 49:1-6; Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12).
Nevertheless their greatness in all cases lay in their total obedience to God, and it was Jesus Himself Who commanded that those who followed Him had, like Him, to be true servants, taking the lowliest place (Mar 10:42-45). Thus the title is one of humility, not of pride.
Note the threefold description of the addressees. They are described as ‘called ones’, ‘beloved’ and ‘kept’. This pattern of threefoldness occurs throughout the letter.
‘Called ones.’ Firstly they are ‘called ones’, that is, called by God. Such a ‘call’ is within the eternal purposes of God and results in the person involved being accounted righteous by God (Rom 8:29). It is certain and irrevocable for it results from His foreknowledge (Rom 8:29; compare Rom 11:29). It is ‘according to His own purpose and grace given us in Christ Jesus before the world began’ (2Ti 1:9). Compare also 2Pe 1:3 where we are ‘called by His (Jesus Christ’s) own glory and excellence’.
This calling is an upward calling. It calls us to seek all things in Christ. ‘I press on towards the goal, towards the prize of the high/upward calling of God in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Php 3:14). As a result we are ‘partakers of a heavenly calling’ (Heb 3:1) and are therefore to set our eyes on Him Who is the Apostle and High priest of our confession, even Jesus (Heb 3:1). Christ is seated in heavenly places and we are called to share His throne with Him (Eph 1:19 to Eph 2:6). And it is a calling in respect of which we are required to prove worthy (Eph 4:1; 2Th 1:11).
‘Beloved in God the Father.’ Compare Rom 1:7. The idea of being beloved parallels the idea of being chosen. Consider how in Matthew, citing Isaiah 42, the Servant is described as, ‘Behold My Servant Whom I have chosen, My beloved (Isa 42:1 – ‘elect one’) in Whom my soul delights’ (Mat 12:18-21). Thus they are chosen and beloved. And unusually this is described as ‘in God the Father’ (elsewhere it is ‘in Christ’). For God the Father is also God our Saviour (Jud 1:25; Luk 1:47 ; 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:3; 1Ti 4:10 etc.).
John expands on the idea of God’s love for us when he declares, ‘in this was the love of God manifested in us, that God has sent His only true-born Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1Jn 4:9-10). Thus we are beloved of God because our sin has been expiated through His cross.
‘Kept for Jesus Christ.’ Being ‘called’ and ‘beloved’ we are ‘preserved’ for Jesus Christ. Compare here 1Pe 1:5, ‘kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time’. The idea is that we are safely held in the Father’s hand (Joh 10:29).
The ideas overall parallel those in Joh 10:27-28. ‘My sheep hear My voice (called) and I know them (beloved) and they follow Me, and I give to them eternal life, and they will never perish (kept) and none shall pluck them from My hand (twice kept) — for none is able to pluck them from My Father’s hand (thrice kept)’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jud 1:1 “to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called” Comments – This description of the believer in Jud 1:1 is in line with the theme of the epistle of Jude, which is need for the Church to keep a sound faith in the midst of false teachers.
When we as parents give birth to children, they are “called” by our name. The parents then begin to raise them in the fear of God, a process which is equivalent to the Christian’s life of sanctification. If children misbehave, the parents do not throw them out of the house and disown them. Rather, they protect them, or “preserve” them; they counsel them; they discipline them; they love them as their own children; they patiently nurture them because they have an unbreakable bond, a relationship that cannot be broken. Parents will not disown their own children. I a similar way, we have been called by God’s name through Jesus Christ. We now are in the process of sanctification and preserved unto Jesus’ coming, never to be disowned.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Introductory salutation:
v. 1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
v. 2. Mercy unto you, and peace, and love be multiplied. This is the common form of introduction to a letter of that day and age, but in a Christian garment: Judas, servant of Jesus Christ, but a brother of James, to those that have been called, the beloved of God the Father and the preserved of Jesus Christ. Jude calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, as Paul often does, although he was called as an apostle. There was nothing of hypocritical pride about these men which might have caused them to presume upon their rights in dictating to the people in their charge. Their attitude was rather that of willing service. That humility was a virtue of Jude appears, moreover, from the fact that he is perfectly content to be known as merely the brother of the more illustrious James. The names which he applies to his readers are significant. They are beloved in God the Father; God loved them from eternity, as a result of which love He gave them His only-begotten Son, through whose vicarious sacrifice they have been reconciled to Him and become His dear children. And it is Jesus Christ who confirms and preserves them; for to Him they belong by virtue of His atonement and their faith, from Him they receive their strength, as the branches from the vine. Thus the Christians are members of Christ, children of God, because faith was kindled in their hearts through the call of the Gospel. Because the Lord wrought in them the power to heed His call, therefore they have become partakers of His love and of the confirming power of Jesus Christ, their Savior.
The salutation speaks of the highest blessings in the world: Mercy to you and peace and love be multiplied! These are the gifts of God to men in and through Christ. The mercy, the free favor of God, is the basis, the ground of peace, and this is perfected in the feeling of God’s love for the believers. Of these wonderful spiritual gifts the Christians should have not only a small, insignificant amount, but the apostle desires that they be poured out upon them in rich measure, that the divine mercy and grace become a source of divine life in them and cause them to partake of the nature of God, to be renewed in His image. This is a declaration and a blessing which at the same time imparts to the believer the spiritual power needed for steadfastness in faith.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Jud 1:1, Jud 1:2
INSCRIPTION DESCRIPTIVE OF WRITER AND READERS, AND CONVEYING SALUTATION.
Jud 1:1
Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. The Epistle opens with a designation of the author which is brief, consisting but of two terms, only remotely, if at all, official, and having nothing exactly like it in the inscriptions of other New Testament Epistles. The writer gives his personal name Jude, or rather, as the Revised Version puts it, Judas. For while in the New Testament the Authorized Version uses the various forms, Judas, Judah, Juda, and Jude, the Revised Version, with better reason, adheres to the form Judas in all cases except those of the tribe and the son of Jacob. The name was a familiar one among the Jews, whose stock of personal names was limited. This is seen in its New Testament use. Not to speak of its occurrence as the name of the son of Jacob, and as the name of two individuals in the line of the ancestry of Jesus (Luk 3:26, Luk 3:30), it appears as the name of several persons belonging to New Testament times. These include one of the brethren of the Lord; the apostle who is called in our Authorized Version “the brother of James,” but who may rather be “the son of James” (Luk 6:16; Joh 14:22; Act 1:13); the traitor Iscariot; the writer of this Epistle; the rebel leader of Galilee (Act 5:37); the man of Damascus to whose house Ananias was directed to go (Act 9:11); the delegate, surnamed Barsabas, who was sent with Paul and Barnabas from the mother Church to Antioch (Act 15:22, Act 15:27, Act 15:32). The writer attaches a twofold designation to his personal name. First, he terms himself “a servant of Jesus Christ,” as the Revised Version puts it, not “the servant of Jesus Christ,” with the Authorized Version. The curious fact has been noticed that this passage and Php 1:1 (in which latter, however, we have the plural form) are the only passages in which the Authorized Version inserts the definite article in the designation of the author of any New Testament book. He gives himself thus the same title as is adopted by the James whose name heads another of the Catholic Epistles, and who is taken to be his brother. It is not certain, however, what breadth of meaning is to be ascribed to the phrase. The term, “servant of Jesus Christ,” or its cognate, is used as a general description of the Christian believer, apart from all reference to any particular position in the Church (1Co 7:22, etc.; Eph 6:6). It does not carry a strictly official sense. It seems never to designate the apostolic office as such, unless some qualifying clause is added. It stands without any such addition, it is true, in Php 1:1 and Jas 1:1. But in the former it is applied to two comrades, one of whom is not an apostle; and in the latter the person so described is in all probability not one of those who appear in the lists of the apostles. In other passages (Rom 1:1; Tit 1:1; 2Pe 1:1) it is coupled with the official term “apostle.” It is claimed by some of the best expositors, however, that in this passage, as in some others, it has an intermediate sense, meaning one who, while not an apostle proper, was charged with the apostolic work of preaching and ministering. If that is so, the writer presents himself as one occupying the kind of position which is assigned to Barnabas, Timothy, and others in the Book of the Acts. But he describes himself further as the “brother of James.” The title has nothing like it elsewhere in the inscriptions of the Epistles, and, as the particle which connects it with the former clause indicates, it points to something not merely additional, but distinctive. The distinction is the relationship to another person in the Church, better known and more influential than himself. For the James here mentioned is generally, and we believe rightly, identified, not with the brother (or son) of Alpheus who appears among the twelve, but with the Lord’s brother, who is represented by the Book of the Acts as in pre-eminent honour and authority in the mother Church of Jerusalem. Jude, therefore, might have called himself the “brother of the Lord.” He abstains from doing so, it is supposed by some, because that title had become the recognized and almost consecrated name of James. Or it may rather be that he shrank from what might seem an appeal to an earthly kinship which had been sunk in a higher spiritual relationship. The choice of the title is at the same time a weighty argument against his belonging to the twelve. Unable to put forward any apostolic dignity or commission as his warrant for writing, and as his claim upon his readers’ attention, he places himself beneath the shield of the more eminent name of a brother, who also was the author of an Epistle in all probability extensively circulated before this one was put forth. Those to whom he writes are also most carefully described. The terms of this threefold designation are unusual and somewhat difficult to construe. The text itself is not quite certain. The Received Text and our Authorized Version give the reading “sanctified,” which has the support of one or two documents of good character, and is still accepted, chiefly on the ground of intrinsic fitness, by some scholars of rank. It must be displaced, however, by the reading “beloved,” which has on its side three of the five primary uncials (the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrian) as well as important versions and patristic quotations, and is accepted by the best recent authorities. This, however, gives us so unusual a combination, “beloved in God the Father,” that some are driven to the conclusion that the preposition has got somehow into a wrong place. Dr. Herr pronounces the connection to be “without analogy,” and to admit of “no natural interpretation;” and the great critical edition of Messrs. Westcott and Herr marks the clause as one which probably contains some primitive error. Taking the terms, however, as the vast preponderance of documentary evidence presents them, we have three brief descriptions of the readers, all sufficiently intelligible, and each obviously in point. The most general of the three descriptive notes is the “called.” The idea of a “call” pervades all Scripture. It appears in a variety of applications, of which the most distinctive is that of a call into the Messianic kingdom. This call is ascribed usually, we may perhaps say universally, to God himself In the Gospels we find the term “called” contrasted with the term “elect” or “chosen” (Mat 22:14), so that the call is of uncertain issue. On the other hand, in the Epistles, at least in Pauline passages of great doctrinal significance (Rom 8:28, Rom 8:30; Rom 11:29, etc.), the election appears as the cause, the call as the result; and the latter then is of certain issue, or, in the language of theology, effectual. It is held by many that throughout the Epistles, or at least throughout the Pauline group, the term has uniformly the sense of a call not merely to the membership of the Church, but to final salvation. Whether this is the ease, and how the usage of the Epistles is to be harmonized with that of the Gospels, are questions which require further consideration. It appears, however, that in the Epistles the idea of the election and the idea of the call often lie so near each other that they seem to be different expressions of one Divine act, and that an act which makes its object sure. In passages like the present, the “called” seems parallel to the “elect” of the inscriptions of 1 Peter and 2 John, and probably has the deeper Pauline meaninga meaning which has its roots no doubt in the Old Testament conception of the certain election of a believing remnant under the theocracy (1Ki 19:18; Isa 59:20, etc.). The parties addressed are described more particularly as “beloved in God the Father.” The difficulty which is felt by the best interpreters of the present day in explaining the preposition “in” as it stands in this unusual connection, appears also in the renderings of the old English Versions. Tyndale and Cranmer, indeed, follow the Received Text, and translate “sanctified in God the Father.” The Genevan also gives “sanctified of God the Father.” But Wickliffe and the Rhemish Version follow the other text (which is that of the Vulgate), and translate it, the former, “to thes that ben loued that ben in God the fadir;” the latter, “to them that are in God the father beloved.” The difficulty is met by a variety of doubtful expedients. Some cut the knot by imposing upon the preposition the sense of “by” or the equally alien sense of “on account of.” Some take it to mean “in the case of God,” or “as regards God,” which comes nearer the point, but is yet short of what is intended. Others would render it “within the sphere of God,” understanding the readers to be described as the objects of the writer’s lovea love which is no mere natural affection, but inspired by God and of spiritual motive; the objection to which is that it is out of harmony with the other designations, which describe the readers from the view-point of the Divine care. The idea, therefore, seems to be that they are the objects of the Divine love, that they have been that and continue to be that in the way of a gracious union and fellowship with himself, into which they have been introduced by God the Father. The preposition, therefore, has the mystical force which it has in the familiar phrase, “in Christ”a force which it may also have where God is the subject. All the more so that the title “God the Father” seems to refer usually, if not exclusively, to God as the Father of Christ. The third clause describes the readers, according to the Authorized Version, as preserved in Jesus Christ. Here the Authorized Version follows Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish Version. That rendering has also been adopted by some recent interpreters of importance. It is wrong, nevertheless. For there is no instance elsewhere of the carrying over of a preposition from one clause to another in such a connection as this. Not less mistaken is Wickliffe’s “kept of Jesus Christ.” The Genevan Version, however, gives the correct rendering, “reserved to Jesus Christ,” and the Revised Version translates it very aptly, “kept for Jesus Christ.” The verb is the one which is used in 1Pe 1:4 to describe the inheritance as “reserved.” It occurs frequently in the Gospels, somewhat rarely in the Pauline Epistles, and there oftenest in those of latest date (1Ti 5:22; 1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 4:7). It occurs with marked frequency in the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. It is most characteristic of 1 John, 2 Peter, and Jude among these Epistles. The idea is that of being preserved by the Divine power until the coming of Christa preservation of which there was the more need to be assured in face of the falling away which threatened the Churches, and had indeed begun in some. Christ prayed his Father to keep, through his own Name, those that were given him (Joh 17:11). Paul prays God to keep his converts blameless unto the coming of Christ (1Th 5:23). These designations tell us nothing of the locality or circumstances of the readers, but limit themselves to spiritual characteristics. The relations in which the several clauses stand to each other is also a matter of dispute. The Authorized Version makes them coordinate clauses, “To them that are sanctified and preserved and called.” It is better to take the “called” as the subject, and the two participles as the qualifying epithets, translating, with the Revised Version, “To them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.” But it perhaps best represents both the force and the order of the original to render it, “To them that are beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ, called ones.”
Jud 1:2
The greeting. This takes the form of a prayer or benediction in three articles. It is rendered in precisely the same termsmercy unto you and peace and love be multipliedin Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, the Authorized Version, and the Revised Version. In Paul’s Epistles the opening salutations usually mention only “grace and peace,” and these as proceeding from “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” But in the pastoral Epistles (as also in 2 John) the three blessings, “grace, mercy, and peace,” appear, and these as coming from the same twofold source of Father and Son. In the Petrine Epistles we have again the two Pauline blessings of grace and peace, but with the distinctive addition of the “be multiplied.” Here, in Jude, we have the characteristic Petrine “be multiplied,” but this connected with three blessings, and these somewhat different from those which appear in the Pastoral Epistles”mercy, peace, and love,” instead of “grace and mercy and peace.” What the writer desires, therefore, on behalf of the readers is an abounding measure of the three great qualities of grace, which refer respectively to the case of the miserable, the case of the hostile, and the case of the unworthy. Are these regarded as subjective qualities in man, or as objective gifts from God? The former view is favoured by some, who point especially to the closing benediction in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 6:23) as a case in point. But the latter view is sustained by the force of the “beloved” in the previous verse, and the mention of” love” in verse 21, as well as by the general analogy of the inscriptions of Epistles. What Jude prays for, therefore, is not that his readers may be helped to exhibit in large measure a merciful, peaceful, and loving disposition to others, but that they may enjoy in liberal degree the great blessings of God’s mercy, peace, and love bestowed upon themselves.
Jud 1:3
The author’s reason for writing. The statement of this is introduced by the conciliatory address, beloveda form of address found twice again in this short Epistle (Jud 1:17, Jud 1:20). It occurs at great turning-points in all the Catholic Epistles, except for an obvious reason in 2 John. (See Jas 1:16, Jas 1:19; Jas 2:5 (who couples the term “brethren” with it); 1Pe 2:11; 1Pe 4:12; 2Pe 3:1, 2Pe 3:8, 2Pe 3:14, 2Pe 3:17; 1Jn 3:2, 1Jn 3:21; 1Jn 4:1, 1Jn 4:7, 1Jn 4:11; 3Jn 1:2, 3Jn 1:5, 3Jn 1:11.) It is frequent also in the Pauline Epistles. It is only here, however, and in 3Jn 1:2 that it is introduced so near the beginning of an Epistle. The statement itself contains several expressions which demand notice. The phrase which the Authorized Version renders, When I gave all diligence, is better rendered, while I was giving all diligence, with the Revised Version. In this particular form it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but it has close parallels in 2Pe 1:5 and Heb 6:11. The noun is the same as is translated “diligence” in Rom 12:8, and “business” in Rom 12:11. It is not certain whether the phrase expresses action here as well as earnest desire; but it indicates the position of the author, whether as seriously bethinking himself to write, or actually engaged in the task, when he had occasion to send the counsels given in this Epistle. The subject on which he had thought of addressing them was the common salvationthe term “salvation” meaning here neither the doctrine nor the means of redemption, but the grace of redemption itself. And this grace is designated “common,” or, as the better reading gives it, “our common salvation;” not with reference to any contrast of Jew with Gentile, but simply as a grace open to all, and in which writer and readers had an equal interest (comp. Act 2:44; Act 4:32; and especially the “common faith” of Tit 1:4). The “like precious faith’ of 2Pe 1:1 is a stronger expression, and probably points to a distinction, formerly existent, but now removed, between Jew and Gentile. The next phrase is rendered too weakly by the Authorized Version, It was needful for me to write unto you. Neither does the Revised Version quite bring out the idea when it substitutes, I was constrained to write unto you. What is in view is an objective necessity; certain circumstances which had arisen and imperatively demanded writing. So that we might translate it, “necessity arose for me to write,” or, “an emergency occurred constraining me to write.” He was thus induced to write in the way of exhorting them. The particular subject of the exhortation is described as the duty of contending earnestly for the faith; the contention being expressed by a strong term somewhat analogous to that used by Paul in Php 1:27, and the “faith” being taken, not in the subjective sense of the quality or grace of belief, but in the objective sense of the things believed. This “faith” is declared to have been delivered once for all (so, with the Revised Version; not once delivered, as the Authorized Version puts it, which might mean “once on a time”) to the saints. It is not stated by whom the deliverance was made. The unexpressed subject may be God, as some suppose who point to the analogy of 1Co 11:23 and 1Co 15:3; or it may be the apostles, as others hold who look to the analogy of such passages as 1Co 11:2; 2Pe 2:21, and especially the seventeenth verse of the present Epistle itself. The main point is, not the author or the instruments of the deliverance, but the fact that such a deliverance has taken place. What has been transmitted is carefully defined, not, indeed, as a system of doctrine, but at least as a sum or deposit of things necessary to be believed. This is said to have been given once for all, so that there is no repetition or extension of the gift. It is described; further, as committed, not to the Church as an organization, nor to any particular office-bearers, but to the saints in general.
Jud 1:4
It has been inferred that the writer had been actually at work upon another Epistle, when he felt it necessary to give it up and compose this one. That is not a certain inference from the previous verse. What that verse makes clear is that it had been Jude’s purpose to compose an Epistle on the general subject of the common salvation, and that something emerged which made him change his plan and write a letter dealing with certain specific matters of urgent importance, and hortatory in its form. The circumstance which led to this change is here statedit was the appearance of a corrupt and insidious party in the Church. For, he says, there are certain men crept in unawares; or, as the Revised Version more forcibly renders it, privily. The verb describes the men as men who had no rightful standing in the Church, but had made their way into it secretly and by false pretences. Compare Paul’s description of the “false brethren unawares brought in, the came in privily to spy out our liberty. which we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:4); but especially the picture which two of the latest Epistles give of the “false teachers who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2Pe 2:1), and those who “creep into houses and lead captive silly women” (2Ti 3:6). The men thus generally described are next designated more precisely as those who were before of old ordained to this condemnation. So the Authorized Version renders it. But the point is more correctly caught by the “even they who” of the Revised Version. The men just spoken of in general terms are immediately described as the very men to whom something more precise applies, which is now to be stated. There is some difficulty, however, as to the exact sense of the statement. The term which is translated “ordained” by the Authorized Version is of doubtful interpretation, the doubt turning on the question whether it has a temporal or a local reference. The latter idea seems to be expressed in Gal 3:1, where the verb means either publicly placarded or openly set forth (“evidently set forth,” according to the Authorized Version). For the most part, however, the temporal sense prevails, and that this is the sense here is confirmed by the fact that the verb is connected with the temporal adverb “of old.” It has been contended that the biblical figure of a book of the Divine counsels is at the basis of the expression here, anti that it should be rendered “ordained” (with the Authorized Version), in the Calvinistic sense of “foreordained.” But this is opposed by the fact that the term here rendered” of old” is not applied in the New Testament to the eternal purpose of God. The reference, therefore, is to ancient prophecy, and the term means “who were of old written of,” “who were of old set forth,” as the Revised Version puts it, or “designated” in prophecy. The writer does not specify what particular prophecies are in view. Hence some take them to be predictions of the evils of the last days spoken of by the apostles, such as we find recorded in the Pastoral Epistles and in 2 Peter. But the force of the phrase “of old,” in its present connection, points to what is of ancient date in the stricter sense. The Old Testament prophecies, therefore, are probably those referred to, and the fact that mention is made by-and-by of Enoch as one of the prophets of old, makes it likely that the predictive sections of the book which bears his name are also in the author’s mind. The phrase, “to this condemnation,” explains that unto which these men were prophetically designated in ancient time. The noun denotes usually, if not invariably, the judgment of a judge on something wrong, and here, therefore, it seems to have the sense of penal judgment or condemnation. It is not quite apparent what judgment is intended. It is supposed by some that the writer is looking to the unhappy relations of these men to the Church, and finds in these relations and in the moral conditions thereby revealed the judgment ‘of God upon them. It is more probable that he refers to the penal retribution, of which he is immediately to give examples. Three strokes are added to the picture of the men. These bring out in darkest outline both their character and their faith. There is first the general description of them as ungodly menimpious men, in whom there is no spirit of reverence, as the adjective literally implies. The same note appears in Peter’s description (2Pe 2:5, 2Pe 2:6). (Compare the use of the same term in Rom 4:5; Rom 5:6; 1Ti 1:9; 2Pe 3:7.) This ungodliness is next shown to take the form of an immoral perversion of spiritual privilegeturning the grace of our God into lasciviousness. By the grace of God is meant the whole gift of redemption offered in the gospel. It is called here the grace of our God; the turn thus given to the expression indicating at once the dear and intimate relation to God into which the writer and his fellows in the faith have been introduced, and their shuddering sense of the shameless use to which his gift was debased. The thing to which that grace was perverted is described by a word of wide and evil application, denoting every species of unbridled conduct, but particularly unblushing licentiousness. The same ungodliness in these men is further declared to rise to a denial and disavowal of all Divine claims upon them. The Revised Version, which is more rigorously true to the original here than the Authorized Version, gives an alternative rendering, denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, in the text, but denying the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ in the margin. The question is whether God and Christ are separately mentioned as both objects of the denial, or whether Christ alone is referred to; both the titles, Master and Lord, being applied to him. The question is not easy to decide. Among the strongest arguments in favour of the latter view are the two considerations that the attitude of these men to God has been already stated in the previous clause, and that in 2Pe 2:1 we find both the verb and the noun which are used here applied to Christ. On the other side, it is urged that the parallel in 1Jn 2:22 favours the double reference here; that the title hero rendered “Master” is never applied to Christ except in the single instance of 2Pe 2:1; that the epithet “only” is used more properly of God, as in verse 25 of this same Epistle; that it is difficult to distinguish between the two titles, if both are referred to Christ here; and that the analogous expression in the Book of Enoch (48:10) is to be considered. The case is stronger on the whole on the side of the twofold subject being in view. But it is further asked whether this denial of God and of Christ is meant to be a theoretical denial or a practical. It is the practical disavowal of God, which appears in a godless and unbridled life, that seems chiefly in view. But there is no good reason for excluding the idea of corrupt doctrine or teaching. The latter is not expressed, it is true, in the terms adopted in the Epistles of John. Neither is there anything to warrant the supposition that the writer was thinking of Simon Magus in particular, or of Carpocrates, or any of the early Gnosticsa supposition entertained both by the earliest Christian writers and by some in our own time. But it is possible enough that the seeds which were to develop into the pronounced Gnosticism of a later time were already sown, and that in such speculative error Jude saw the ally of a life which was regardless of all Divine restraint.
Jud 1:5-7
Three instances of the judgments of God are now referred to. They are cited as typical examples of the Divine retribution, with which the readers can be taken to be familiar, and which they will recognize to give point to the terror of the condemnation overhanging the men in question.
Jud 1:5
The first is taken from the history of Israel. It is introduced, not as a contrast with what precedes, but as a natural transition from it. It is given, too, as a matter quite within their knowledge, and of which consequently they need only to be reminded. The Authorized Version is short of the mark in several respects here. What the writer expresses is not the mere fact that he is to do a certain thing, but that he has the wish to do so. Hence the now I desire to put you in remembrance of the Revised Version is preferable to the I will therefore, etc., of the Authorized Version. The next clause is more decidedly astray. For the term rendered” once” means “once for all,” and the knowledge is given as a present possession. Hence the rendering should be though ye know once for all; or better, knowing as ye do once for alla form of expression which might be paraphrased in our English idiom, as Mr. Humphry rightly observes, “though ye have known all along.” There is, however, very considerable difficulty in the reading here. It varies between “ye know this” which is accepted by the Authorized Version, “ye know all things” which is preferred by the Revised Version, and “ye all know” which, though poorly accredited, is yet supposed by Professor Herr to be not improbably the original. The documentary evidence is, on the whole, on the side of “all things;” and if this is adopted, the universal term will naturally be limited by the context to a knowledge of all that is pertinent to the point in question. This knowledge of the principles at issue in the case of these evil men, and of the retributive deeds of God by which these principles have been signally vindicated, is a reason why Jude needs simply to refresh the memories of his readers, and not to tell them anything new. In the second half of the verse there is a still more serious difficulty in the text. Instead of the term “Lord,” some of the very best authorities read “Jesus.” If this must be accepted, we have an act of the Jehovah of the Old Testament ascribed to the Jesus of the New Testament. But this would be an entirely unexampled usage. For, while the New Testament not unfrequently introduces the name of Christ when it refers to deeds of grace or claims of honour which the Old Testament connects with the name of Jehovah (cf. 1Co 10:4; 1Pe 3:15, etc.), it never does this with that name of the Redeemer of the New Testament which specially marks his human nature and origin. Hence Professor Herr speaks of the reading “Jesus” here as a blunder, however supported. The ordinary reading may, therefore, be adhered to, especially as it is by no means ill accredited, having on its side two of the primary uncials and other weighty authorities. These clauses are peculiar in other respects. They speak not of “the people” as the Authorized Version puts it, but rather of “a people.” And this is not without its purpose. For the idea is not simply that the ancient Israel experienced both redemption and judgment at the hands of their Lord, but that Israel’s Lord, by bringing Israel out of Egypt, secured a people for himself, though he had also to destroy unbelievers among them. Again, the phrase rendered “afterward” by the Authorized Version means strictly “the second time,” as is noticed by the margin of the Revised Version. What is intended, therefore, may be that Israel was the subject of two great deeds on Jehovah’s partin the first instance a redeeming deed, in the second instance a punitive deed. And his purpose in seeking a people for himself was not inconsistent with his doing what he did in this second instance. What, then, is referred to? Those seem to interpret it best who take it to be a general reference to the wilderness-fate of unbelieving Israel, rather than to any single instance of the terrors of the Divine judgment, such as that reported in Num 25:1-9. It is far-fetched to suppose that the event in view is one so remote from the deliverance of Israel from Egypt as the Babylonian captivity. We may compare with this verse, therefore, such passages as Psa 106:12-21; Heb 3:16-4:5.
Jud 1:6
The second instance of Divine judgment is taken from the angelic world. The copula connects it closely with the former, and gives it some emphasis: “angels, too,” i.e., angels not less than the people selected by God to be a people for himself, have been examples of the terrible law of Divine retribution. The particular class of angels are defined as those who kept not their first estate; or better, their own principality. The idea conveyed by the term here is that of lordship rather than beginning. It is the term which is held by most commentators to be used as a title of angels in such passages as Col 1:16; Eph 1:21; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12, etc., where mention is made of “principalities.” In the present passage Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan and our Authorized Version agree in rendering it “first estate.” But the Rhemish gives “principality,” and Wickliffe has “princehood.” Those seem right, therefore, who take the reference to be to the Jewish idea of a peculiar dignity or lordship held by the angels in creation. The sin alleged as the reason for the penalty which the writer recalls to the minds of his readers is that they failed to keep this lordship, and left their proper habitation; by which latter clause a descent to a different sphere of being is intended. The penalty itself is thisthat God hath kept them in everlasting chains (or, bonds, with the Revised Version) under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. It is well to retain the rendering “kept” in this clause, instead of the “reserved” of the Authorized Version. For the verb used in describing the sin and that used in describing the penalty are the same. As they “kept not their lordship,” God has “kept them in everlasting bonds.” The word by which the idea of the everlasting is expressed is a peculiarly strong one, occurring only once again in the New Testament, viz. in Rom 1:20, where it is applied to God’s “eternal power.” It designates these bonds as bonds from which there never can be escape. The place of this present penal detention is declared to be “under darkness.” The term selected for the darkness, again, is an unusual one, occurring only here, in Rom 1:13, and in 2Pe 2:4, 2Pe 2:17, and possibly Heb 12:18. It means the densest, blackest darkness, and is used both in Homer and in the apocryphal literature (Wis. 17:2) of the darkness of the nether world. This darkness, as Dean Alford observes, is “considered as brooding over them, and they under it.” But this present penal detention is itself the prelude to a still more awful doom”the judgment of the great day” (cf. Act 2:20; Rev 6:17). There is a similar, but less definite, statement on the subject of angelic sin and penalty in 2Pe 2:4. But these representations differ greatly from others (e.g., Eph 2:2; Eph 6:12), where the air or the heavenly places appear as the scenes occupied by evil spirits, and these spirits possess freedom. In the New Testament, indeed, there are no passages, except those in Peter and Jude, which speak of fallen angels as at present in bonds. Even in Mat 25:41, the statement is of a fate prepared, and nothing more. The difference in the two representations is due probably to a difference in the subjects. Other passages refer to the devil and his angels. But in the present passage there is nothing to indicate that the fall of Satan is in view. The sin suggested by the context is not the sin of pride, but a sin against nature. The reference, therefore, is taken to be to the Jewish idea that amatory passion is not limited to the creatures of earth, and that some angels, yielding to the spell of the beauty of the daughters of men, forsook their own kingdom, and entered unto unnatural relations with them. The Jewish belief is seen in the story of Asmodeus in the Book of Tobit; it is found by Josephus (who has been followed by not a few modern interpreters) in Gen 6:1-4; and it is given with special distinctness in the Book of Enoch.
Jud 1:7
The third example is taken from the history of the cities of the Plain. This example is closely connected with the immediately preceding by the even as with which the verse opens; which phrase expresses a likeness between the two cases, to wit, between the reservation of those angels in bonds for the final judgment, and the fate of those cities as subjects of the penal vengeance of God. Two of those cities of evil memory, Sodom and Gomorrah, are mentioned by name. The other two, Admah and Zeboim, are included in the phrase, and the cities about them. Attention is rightly called by some of the commentators to the remarkable frequency with which the case of Sodom and Gomorrah is brought forward, both in the New Testament and in the Old, and to the use which Paul makes of it (as he finds it cited by Isaiah) in the great argument of Rom 9:1-33. The sin charged against these cities is stated in express terms to have been the same in kind with that of the angelsthe indulgence of passion contrary to nature. They are described as having in like manner with these (that is, surely, in like manner with these angels just referred to; not, as some strangely imagine, with these men who corrupt the Church) given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh. The verbs are selected to bring out the intense sinfulness of the sinthe one being a strong compound form expressing unreserved surrender, the other an equally strong compound form denoting a departure from the law of nature in the impurities practiced. The sin has taken its name from the city with which the Book of Genesis so fearfully connects its indulgence. It forms one of the darkest strokes in the terrible picture which Paul has given us of the state of the ancient heathen world (Rom 1:27). With the Dead Sea probably in his view, the writer describes the doom of the cities as an example of or a witness to (the noun used being one that occurs again only in Jas 5:11, and bearing either sense) the retributive justice of God. They are set forth (literally, they lie before us) for an example, suffering the vengeance (rather, the punishment) of eternal fire. So it is put by the Authorized Version and the Revised Version, as also by Wickliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, and the Rhemish. There is much to be said, however, in favour of the order adopted by the Revised Version in its margin, viz. “set forth as an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment.” It could not, except in a forced manner, be said that these cities, in being destroyed as they were, suffered the penalty of eternal fire, and continued to serve as an instance of that. But it could be said that, in being destroyed, they suffered punishment, and that the kind of punishment was typical of the eternal retribution of God. “A destruction,” says Professor Lumby, “so utter and so permanent as theirs has been, is the nearest approach that can be found in this world to the destruction which awaits those who are kept under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
Jud 1:8
Having set in the forefront of his warnings these terrible instances of gross sin and overwhelming penalty, the writer proceeds to deal with the real character of the insidious troublers and corrupters of the Churches of his time. He describes them as filthy dreamers; or better, as the Revised Version puts it, men in their dreamingsan expression pointing to the foul and perverted fancies in the service of which they lived. He charges them with the particular sins of defiling the flesh, despising dominion, and railing at dignities. He further declares of them that, in practicing such sins, they run a course like that of the cities of the plain, and run it in defiance, too, of the warning held forth to them by the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. For such seems the point of the terms connecting this paragraph with the preceding, which are best rendered “nevertheless in like manner,” or “yet in like manner” (Revised Version). The difficulty lies, however, in the description of their offences. What is intended by the charge that they defile the flesh is obvious. But what is referred to in the other clauses, and set at naught dominion (or, lordship), and rail at dignities (or, glories), is far from clear. It has been supposed that a lawlessness is meant which expressed itself in contempt for all earthly authority, whether political or ecclesiastical. The whole scope of the passage, however, and the analogy of 2Pe 2:10, etc., seem to point so decidedly to higher dignities than the earthly institutions of Church and State, that most interpreters now think that celestial lordship of some kind is in view. But of what kind? That of God and that of good angels, say some. That of Christ and that of angels, say others. Both clauses, say a third class of interpreters, refer to angels, both to good angels and to evil, or to good angels alone, or to evil angels alone, as the allusions are variously understood. Pointing to the particular word which is used here for “dominion” or “lordship,” some contend that there is a definite reference to the dominion of Christ, the Lord distinctively so called. But the same word is used elsewhere (cf. Eph 1:21; Col 1:16) of angels, while the term translated “dignities,” or “glories,” occurs again only in 2Pe 2:10. If, therefore, any single kind of lordship is in view, we should conclude in favour of angelic dignities, and the authority of good angels in particular. But it may be that Jude uses the terms here in a general sense to cover all kinds of authority, especially celestial authority. This is favoured by the undefined expressions which meet us in the Petrine parallel (2Pe 2:10, etc.). It is supported, too, by the consideration that in leveling three separate charges against the men, Jude has probably in view the three separate cases which he has just cited in Jud 1:5-7. In which case the parallel between these latter and the men now described can naturally be only of a general kind. It is remarked by Professor Plumptre that the passage in 2Pe 2:10, etc. (see his Commentary), taken in connection with this one in Jude, suggests that “the undue worshipping of angels in the Judaizing Gnosticism which had developed out of the teaching of the Essenes (Col 2:18), had been met by its most extreme opponents with coarse and railing mockery as to all angels, whether good or evil, and that the apostle felt it necessary to rebuke this license of speech as well as that which paid no respect to human authority.”
Jud 1:9
The irreverent and unbridled speech of these “filthy dreamers” is now contrasted with the self-restraint of one of the “dignities” of the angelic world. The point of the contrast is sufficiently clear. The incident itself is obscure. But Michael the archangel. With the exception of Rev 12:7, where he is described as warring with the dragon, this is the only mention which the New Testament makes of Michael. It is entirely in harmony, however, with the Old Testament representation. It is only in the Book of Daniel that he is named there, but he appears as the champion and protector of Israel against the world-powers of heathenism. He is “one of the chief princes” (Dan 10:13), “your prince” (Dan 10:21), “the great prince” (Dan 12:1), who gives help against Persia, and stands for the chosen people. He is also introduced in the Book of Enoch, and the view given of him there is like that in Jude. He is “the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael” (40:8). He belongs to that developed form which the doctrine of angels took towards the close of Old Testament revelation, when the ideas of distinction in dignity and office were added to the simpler conception of earlier times. In the apocryphal books we find a hierarchy with seven archangels, including Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel. When contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. These last words occur in Zec 3:2, where they are addressed by the Lord to Satan. The term used for “disputed” points to a contention in words. The phrase rendered “railing accusation” by the English Version, and “invective” by others, means rather a judgment or “sentence savouring of evil-speaking,” as Alford puts it. Following the Rhemish Version, therefore, the Revised Version renders it a “railing judgment.” What is meant, then, is that Michael restrained himself, leaving all judgment and vengeance even in this case to God. But what is the case referred to? The Targum of Jonathan, on Deu 34:6, speaks of Michael as having charge of the grave of Moses, and there may be something to the same effect in other ancient Jewish legends (see Wetstein). But with this partial exception, there seems to be nothing resembling Jude’s statement either in apocryphal books like that of Enoch or in the rabbinical literature, not to speak of the canonical Scriptures. Neither is the object of the contention quite apparentwhether it is meant that the devil attempted to deprive Moses of the honour of burial by impeaching him of the murder of the Egyptian, or that he sought to preserve the body for idolatrous uses such as the brazen serpent lent itself to, or what else. The matter, nevertheless, is introduced by Jude as one with which his readers would be familiar. Whence, then, comes the story? Some have solved the difficulty by the desperate expedient of allegory, as if the body of Moses were a figure of the Israelite Law, polity, or people; and as if the sentence referred to the giving of the Law at Sinai, the siege under Hezekiah, or the rebuilding under Zerubbabel. Others seek its source in a special revelation, or in some unrecorded instructions given by Christ in explanation of the Transfiguration scene. Herder would travel all the way to the Zend-Avesta for it. Calvin referred it to oral Jewish tradition. Another view of it appears, however, in so early a writer as Origen, viz. that it is a quotation from an old apocryphal writing on the Ascent or Assumption of Moses, the date of which is much disputed, but is taken by some of the best authorities (Ewald, Wieseler, Dillmann, Drummond) to be the first decade after the death of Herod. This is the most probable explanation; and Jude’s use of this story, therefore, carries no more serious consequences with it than the use he afterwards makes of the Book of Enoch. Beyond what could be gathered from a few scattered references and quotations in the Fathers and some later writings, the book in question remained unknown for many centuries. But in the year 1861 a considerable part of it, which had been discovered in the Ambrosian Library of Milan, was given to the public by Ceriani, in an Old Latin version, and since that time various editions of it have been published. Ewald observes that the quotation “shows how early the attempt was made to describe exactly the final moment of the life of Moses, and to weave into this description a complete answer to the questions which arose concerning his highest glory, and his guilt or innocence”. Some who are not prepared to accept the theory that the passage is a quotation from this ancient book, understand Jude to refer to a traditional expansion of Scripture, based partly on the narrative of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy, and partly on the scene between Joshua and Satan in Zec 3:1-10. So, for example, Professor Lumby, who is of opinion that the mention of Jannes and Jambres in 2Ti 3:8, and certain passages in Stephen’s speech as reported in Act 7:1-60, show that there were current among the Jews “traditional explanations of the earlier history, which had grown round the Old Testament narrative.” (On the Assumption of Moses, and the spread of legend on the subject of the death of Moses, see Schurer’s ‘The Jewish People in the Time of Christ,’ volume 3, div. 2. pages 80-83, Clark’s translation.)
Jud 1:10
The description of the men dealt with in Jud 1:8 is resumed, their impious irreverence and self-indulgence being set over against Michael’s bearing. The corresponding passage in 2Pe 2:12 is less definite. Here we have two pointed statements, one referring to the railers at dignities, the other to the defilers of the flesh in 2Pe 2:8. But these rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in those things are they destroyed. So the Revised Version renders it, with much more precision than the Authorized Version, and preserving the distinction which appears in the original between two verbs,” knowing” and “understanding,” applied to two different classes of objects. The idea is that high and holy objects are beyond their knowledge, and their understanding is limited to the senses, the physical wants and appetites which they have in common with the brutes. In the case of the former they are rash and profane of speech where they should be silent and restrained; in the case of the latter they use them only to their own undoing. The turn of the phrase, “in these they are destroyed” (or, “destroy themselves”), indicates, perhaps, how absolutely they are lost in the service of the physical appetites. The words which Milton makes the tempter use of himself have been cited as a parallel to this verse
“I was at first as other beasts that graze
The trodden herb, of abject thoughts and low,
As was my food; nor aught but food discerned
Or sex, and apprehended nothing high.”
(‘Paradise Lost,’ 9:571-574.)
Jud 1:11
As in 2Pe 2:15, the darkest passages in the Old Testament history are again appealed to. While Peter, however, refers only to a single instance, Jude introduces three, and prefaces the whole by a Woe! such as the Gospels repeatedly attribute to Christ himself. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain; rather, they went in the way of Cain. The phrase is the familiar one for a habitual course of conduct (Psa 1:1; Act 9:31; Act 14:16, etc.). But what is the point of the comparison? Cain is supposed to be introduced as the type of murderous envy, of the persecuting spirit, or of those who live by the impulse of nature, regardless of God or man. In Joh 3:12 he is the type of all that is opposed to the sense of brotherhood, the murderer of the brother whose righteous works are an offence to him; but in the present passage he is introduced rather as the first and, in some respects, the most pronounced example of wickedness which the Old Testament offersa wickedness defying God and destroying man. And ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward. The “error” in view is a life diverted from righteousness and truth. The verb rendered “ran greedily,” or “ran riotously,” is a very strong one, meaning they “were poured out,” and expressing, therefore, the baneful absoluteness of their surrender to the error in question. Otherwise the construction of the sentence is so far from obvious that various renderings are proposed: e.g., “They gave themselves wholly up to the error of Balaam for the sake of a reward;” “By the seduction of Balaam’s reward they committed excess of wickedness;” “They went to excess by Balaam’s error, which was one determined by gain.” The first of these is adopted, with some modification, by the Revised Version, and comes nearest the idea, which is that of men losing themselves in riotous excess for the sake of worldly advantage. The point of the analogy between Balaam and them, therefore, is, not his enticing Israel to idolatry or to immorality, as some understand it, but the covetous spirit which the Old Testament and the New alike attribute to the prophet of Pethor, to which also the Book of Numbers carries back the entire debasement of his character and perversion of his gifts. And perished in the gainsaying of Core. The term which is very fitly rendered “gainsaying” by the English Version here (“contradiction” in the Rhemish Version; “treason” in Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan) denotes properly an opposition expressing itself in words. It is, therefore, aptly applied to the rebellion of Korah and his company, who “gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you,” etc. (Num 16:3). The analogy between the two cases, consequently, is limited by some to the assertion of an unregulated liberty, the assumption of a self-invented holiness, or the adoption of a worship which was alien to God. It lies in the broader idea of a contemptuous and determined assertion of self against divinely appointed ordinances.
Jud 1:12, Jud 1:13
The next two verses carry on the description of the men in a running fire of epithets and figures, short, sharp, and piercing, corresponding also at certain points with 2Pe 2:13-17. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear. What is referred to appears not to be ordinary friendly gatherings or occasions for the interchange of affection, but the well-known agapae, or love-feasts, of the primitive Church, the meals provided in connection with the Lord’s Supper, at which rich and poor sat down together. In adopting the rendering “spots,” the English Version follows Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, and the Rhemish, and is followed by some good interpreters on the ground that the term, though formally different, is essentially the same as that in 2Pe 2:13. The word itself, however, properly means “rocks,” and therefore the point may be that their immoral conduct makes these men like treacherous reefs, on which their fellows make shipwreck. So the Revised Version gives “hidden rocks” in the text, and transfers “spots” to the margin. The “without fear,” which is usually attached to the third clause, is connected by some with the second, in which case it expresses the reckless, irreverent spirit in which these men joined in the sacred agape. The last clause, “feeding [or, ‘pasturing’] themselves,” describes them further as having no regard to the proper object of these love-feasts in ministering to Christian fellowship and the holy sense of brotherhood, but as using them simply as a means for the saris-faction of their own appetites and the furtherance of their own base ends. Compare the evils referred to by Paul in 1Co 11:21, and the description of the shepherds in Eze 34:1-31, and Isa 56:11. “They are like shepherds,” says Humphry, “that have themselves for their flocks, feasting themselves, not their sheep, and doing this without fear of the chief Shepherd, who has his eye upon them.” Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; or, carried past by winds. Like rainless clouds, the sport of the uncertain breezes, yielding nothing for the fruitfulness of earth, these empty, volatile, inconstant men disappoint the expectation of the Church and do it no service. Trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots. The Authorized Version is less happy than usual in its rendering of the first clause. The Revised Version, in adopting “autumn trees” instead of “trees whose fruit withereth,” returns to the renderings of the earlier versions, Wickliffe giving “harvest trees,” Tyndale and Cranmer “trees without fruit at gathering-time,” and the Rhemish “trees of autumn.” The idea of uselessness and unfruitfulness, which was expressed in the previous figure, is repeated, but in a more absolute form, in this new figure. The late autumn is not the time, from the Eastern point of view, for the putting forth of fruit. The tree then becomes bare, barren, leafless. So is it with these men. Nor is it only that they have no fruit to show. The capacity of fruitfulness is extinct within them. The possibility of recovering it is gone from them. They are as dead to all good service as trees are which are rooted out as hopelessly useless. The phrase, “twice dead,” may mean no more than “utterly dead.” The point, however, is rather thisthat they are dead, not only in respect of barrennesswhich is a death in lifebut in respect of the extinction of all vitality. Raging (or, wild) waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; or shames, as the original gives it; that is to say, shameful deeds, or, it may be, the degrading lusts which inspire their unlicensed life (Huther). This comparison recalls at once the figure in Isa 57:20. Wandering stars, to whom is (or, has been) reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. In the Book of Enoch (Isa 18:1-7 :14) the angel shows the prophet “a prison for the stars of heaven, and for the host of heaven,” and in the next verse it is explained that “the stars that roll over the fire are they who have transgressed the command of God before their rising, because they did not come forth in their time.” It is possible that Jude had this in mind here, as the language of earlier chapters of the same book may have suggested others of Jude’s figures. If the “wandering stars” are to be identified with any particular order of the heavenly bodies, it will be with the comets rather than the planets, the movements of the former seeming, to the common eye, so much the more erratic. The doom which is declared to be in reserve, no doubt takes its form so far from the immediate figure of the comet vanishing into the unseen. But the idea expressed is not so much that of suddenness as that of certainty and irreversibility. It is the doom which Christ himself pronounces to be prepared (Mat 25:41), and, therefore, inevitable and perpetual. In confirmation of this statement of the certainty of the doom, the readers are next reminded of the Lord’s judicial coming, and of that as the subject of prophecy. The prophecy in question, though not one of those recorded in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures, seems to have been familiar enough to the readers to make it a natural and pertinent thing to quote it. So Paul cites heathen authors or common popular sayings in support of his statements.
Jud 1:14, Jud 1:15
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these. The Revisers render it, and to these also Enoch prophesied. In the apocryphal writing from which the passage is taken Enoch is styled, as here, “the seventh from Adam.” Seven occurs in Scripture as a sacred symbolical number. Its introduction here, therefore, is very generally understood to claim a peculiar authority and finality for the prophecy emitted by Enoch. But it may be intended simply to mark the high antiquity of the prophecy, and its connection with the man who was distinguished from others of the same name mentioned in the oldest Scriptures (Gen 4:17; Gen 25:4; Gen 46:9) by his exceptional nearness to God. Saying, Behold the Lord cometh (literally, came) with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince (that is, to convict) all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches (or, with the Revised Version, all the hard things) which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. The “ten thousands of his saints” is better rendered “ten thousands of his holy ones,” or, as the Revised Version gives it in the margin, “his holy myriads.” For the “holy ones” here intended are the angels. The mention of this retinue of Jehovah is in accordance with the Hebrew idea which appears in such passages as Deu 33:2, Deu 33:3; Dan 7:10; Zec 14:5 (where the better reading is, “and the holy ones with him”); and appears again in the New Testament (Mat 25:31; 2Th 1:7, etc.). The clause, “among them,” which might limit the ungodly to those in Israel, is omitted by the best authorities. The epithet “hard,” which is applied to the “speeches,” means hard in the sense of “harsh,” not in the sense of “difficult to understand.” It is the “churlish” which is applied to Nabal (1Sa 25:3). In the original the whole emphasis of the sentence is on the “ungodly sinners,” which words are thrown forward to the close, thus: “all the hard things which they uttered against himthese impious sinners!” Near the beginning of that remarkable specimen of ancient apocalyptic literature, the Book of Enoch (Zec 1:9), we find these words, “And behold, he comes with myriads of the holy, to pass judgment upon them, and will destroy the impious, and will call to account all flesh for everything the sinners and the impious have done and committed against him” (Schodde’s rendering). This is the passage which Jude quotes. He does so, however, with some modification; for the original, as we now have it, does not contain any reference to the “hard speeches” of the men of impiety. The book itself has had a singular history. Some acquaintance with it is discovered as early as the ‘Epistle of Barnabas,’ the ‘Book of Jubilees,’ and the ‘Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.’ It was freely used by the Fathers of the first five centuries. Though never formally recognized as canonical, it was in great esteem, largely accepted as a record of revelations, and regarded as the work of Enoch. It disappeared after Augustine’s time, the only traces of its existence being some references to it in the writings of Syncellus and Nicephorus. From this time it was entirely lost sight of till rather more than a century ago, when the Abyssinian Church was discovered to possess an Ethiopic version of it. The well-known traveler, Bruce, obtained three copies of this version in 1773, and in 1821 an English translation was published by Archbishop Laurence. This was followed by a German translation by Hoffmann in 1833. The Ethiopic text itself was first issued by Archbishop Laurence in 1838, and afterwards in most scholarly fashion by Dillmann, in 1851, who also published a new German translation with important emendations in 1853. Since then much attention has been paid to the book. Within the last few years a corrected edition of Laurence’s English translation has been published by the author of the ‘Evolution of Christianity’; while another edition, with an English translation and important explanatory matter, has been issued by Professor Schodde of Ohio. An attempt has been made by some to bring the composition of the book down to Christian times, so that Enoch should quote Jude, not Jude Enoch. But there is every reason to believe that it belongs to the second century B.C. Certain portions of the book, however, are of later date. For it is scarcely possible to deny that it is the work of more than one hand. The original seems to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We cannot be far astray, therefore, in accepting it as the composition of a Jew of Palestine dating between B.C. 166 and 110. It professes to give a series of revelations or visions received by Enoch, in which the fall of the angels, the punishment of unrighteous men, the reward of the godly, the coming of Messiah, the mystery of the world-weeks, and the secrets of the kingdom of nature, as well as those of the kingdom of grace, are shown him. That such a book should have been ascribed to Enoch is not strange. It was suggested by the account which is given of him in Gen 5:21-24. “The statements there left ample room,” as Dr. Schodde well remarks, “for a vivid imagination to supply unwritten history, while antiquity and piety made Enoch a welcome name to give force and authority to a book, and the ‘walking with God’ of Enoch, and his translation to heaven, which correct exegesis has always read in this passage, founded his claim of having enjoyed close communion with God and having possessed superhuman knowledge.”
Jud 1:16
As in 2Pe 2:18, 2Pe 2:19, the men are further stigmatized for the gross and profane selfishness to which they gave vent in speech. The present verse enlarges on the particular vice which the writer adds to the more general statement given in the Book of Enochthe vice of uttering hard things against God. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage. The words rendered “murmurers” and “complainers” occur nowhere else in the New Testament. It is doubtful whether any clear distinction can be drawn between them, except that the former term is the more general, and the latter the more specific, expressing one particular direction which the murmuring spirit takes, namely, that of discontent with their circumstances (so Huther, etc.). The clause, “walking after their own lusts,” then declares the secret cause of their discontent. They made themselves, their own notions of things, their own ambitions and appetites, the one rule of their life. They therefore judged the lot which was assigned them by God unworthy of them and railed against it. We may gather from the parallel passage in 2 Peter that they forswore in especial the restraints put upon them by the providence or by the grace of God, and asserted a liberty which meant unbridled self-indulgence. The arrogant selfishness which refused to be fettered by Divine law naturally expressed itself also in “great swelling words,” in loud protestations, perhaps, that nothing should interfere with their liberty. The phrase (which in the New Testament occurs again only in 2Pe 2:18) is the same as is rendered “speak marvelous things” in Daniel’s description of the king who “shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods,” etc. (Dan 11:36, Dan 11:37). In the last clause we have a phrase similar to, but not quite the same as, the one which usually expresses the idea of having respect of persons. The Authorized Version, therefore, seems to do better than the Revised Version here in adopting a rendering which indicates that there is some difference from the usual form. The point of this difference may be that Jude’s phrase expresses not merely the partial and unprincipled conduct which is one thing to the poor and another to the rich, but the open and unconcealed adulation with which these men hung upon those to whom it might be of advantage to attach themselves. The proud repudiation of the submission which was due to God and the Divine disposal of their lot was accompanied by a cringing, unblushing submission of their manhood to those of their fellow-men who had favours to bestow. Arrogance and servility are near of kin. The boaster is half-brother to the parasite.
Jud 1:17, Jud 1:18
A direct appeal is now introduced to the readers. Its object is to save them from being disconcerted by the rise of these impious men or beguiled by their pretensions. They are reminded, therefore, of apostolic words, by which from the beginning they had been taught to anticipate such perils and to be on their guard against them. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were (or, have been) spoken before of (i.e. by) the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Revised Version rightly restores the rendering “but ye, beloved,” which the Authorized Version dropped. The older versions, Wickliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, the Rhemish, agree in introducing this emphatic “ye,” which sets the readers in sharpest contrast to these “murmurers,” and gives greater point to Jude’s appeal. The teaching of the apostles on the subject in hand is referred to as something by no means strange to them. The terms would naturally suggest that the readers had been themselves hearers of the apostles. They are not decisive, however, of the question whether oral or written communications, direct or indirect instructions, are in view. The indeterminate sense of the term “apostle,” and the general tenor of the reference, make it impossible to say that Jude ranks himself here among the twelve. The sentence would be more natural on the lips of one who was not himself an apostle. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. The Revised Version is more literally true to the original in giving this the direct form, how that they said, to you, In the last time there shall be mockers, etc. This does not necessarily imply, however, that written words are referred to, or that a quotation is being made. The tense of the verb, “said,” by which the words are introduced, points the other way. It means that they were in the way of saying such things, and makes it probable, therefore, that Jude refers to the substance of what the apostles were in the habit of saying about the future in their ordinary preaching and teaching. Christ’s own prophecies on the subject of the end (Mat 24:1-51, Mat 25:1-46) would form the text for such declarations. We have examples of these apostolic predictions in the case of Paul (Act 20:29; 2Ti 3:1), in that of John (1Jn 2:18), in that of Peter (2Pe 3:2, 2Pe 3:3). The last resembles the present passage most closely, the same unusual word for “mockers,” or “scoffers,” being common to both. The stress of the statement is again on the sensual impiety of these men, as appears from the strong and peculiar phrase with which the prediction closes, “walking after their own lusts of ungodliness”. By “the last time” (with which compare the expressions in 1Pe 1:5, 1Pe 1:20; 2Pe 3:3; Heb 1:1, etc.) is meant the time which closes the present order of things, and ushers in Christ’s return. It was a Hebrew idea that time was divided into two great periods” this age” and “the age to come,” which were parted by the coming of Messiah. The “age to come,” or the Messianic age, was in principle introduced by Messiah’s first advent, but it was to be finally brought in by his second adventan event conceived to be near. The time which heralded the conclusive termination of the one period and entrance of the other was “the last time”a time of evils and of portents marking the end of the old order.
Jud 1:19
There follows yet another description of the same men, taking up that in Jud 1:16, and generalizing it in harmony with what is suggested by the apostolic prediction. In three bold strokes it gives a representation of them which is at once the sharpest and the broadest of all. This final description, too, at last lays bare the root of their hopeless corruption. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. The pronoun “themselves” cannot be retained in face of the weight of documentary evidence against it. The verb (which is one of very rare occurrence) is held to be capable of more than one senseseceding, causing divisions, creating factions, making definitions or distinctions. The most natural meaning seems to be that adopted by the Revised Version, they who make separations. So Tyndale; Cranmer and the Genevan have “these are makers of sects,” and Luther gives “makers of factions.” It may be that they caused divisions by setting themselves up as the only enlightened Christians, and, on the ground of that enlightenment, claiming to be superior to the moral laws which bound others. The term translated “sensual” has unfortunately no proper representative in English. It is “psychical,” being formed from the noun psyche, which is rendered “life” or “soul.” This psyche is intermediate between “body” and “spirit.” It is in the first instance simply the bond or principle of the animal life, and in the second instance it is embodied life. Thus it is that in man which he has in common with the brute creation beneath him, But it becomes also more than this, expressing that in man which renders him capable of connection with God. For in the third instance it denotes the seat of feeling, desire, affection, and emotion; the center of the personal lifethe self in man. The adjective itself occurs in the New Testament only in a few passages of marked importance1Co 2:14; 1Co 15:44, 1Co 15:46; Jas 3:15; and the present verse. Here it designates the men as men who live only for the natural selfmen who make the sensuous nature, with its appetites and passions, the law of their life; natural or animal men, as the Revised Version gives it in the margin. Wickliffe renders it “beastly;” Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan, “fleshly;” the Rhemish, “sensual.” The third clause admits of being rendered either “having not the spirit” (in which the Authorized is supported by Wickliffe, Tyndale, and Cranmer), or “having not the Spirit” (so the Revised Version, following the Genevan and the Rhemish). For it is in many passages difficult to decide whether the word “spirit” means the Holy Spirit of God or man’s own spiritthat in him in virtue of which he can have fellowship with the Divine, and on which God specially acts; “that highest and noblest part of man,” as Luther puts it, “which qualifies him to lay hold of incomprehensible, invisible things, eternal things; in short the house where faith and God’s Word are at home.” The rendering of the Revised Version is favoured by the occurrence of the term in the following verse. The Spirit of God was not in the lives or the thoughts of these men, and hence they were creators of division, and sensual. Their pretension was that they were the eminently spiritual. But in refusing the Divine Spirit they had sunk to the level of an animal life, immoral in itself, and productive of confusion to the Church.
Jud 1:20-23
From these corrupters of the Church, who have occupied his pen so long and so painfully, Jude now turns direct to his readers and brings his ‘subject to a fitting close, with a couple of exhortations full of a wise and tender concern. One of the two counsels deals with what they should do for the protection of their own Christian position against the insidious evils of which he has written in words of passion. The other deals with what they should do for the preservation of others exposed to the same seductive perils. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith. The tone of pleading affection appears in the grave and earnest words by which he reminds his readers of the necessity of looking carefully to their own perseverance. As the condition of all else, he names the great duty of personal edification or up-building. They must strengthen themselves on their foundation, and that foundation is their “most holy faith.” By this apparently Jude does not mean simply the subjective grace or virtue of faith. Peter, indeed, speaks of the strengthening and development of that as the secret of being neither barren nor unfruitful. But the idea and the phrase seem somewhat different here; for any spiritual gift of their own would be all too weak a security. It is rather the “faith” which has been already mentioned as “once delivered unto the saints” (Jud 1:3), and is now conceived as possessed by the readers. In this faith, of which Christ himself is the Sum, they have a secure foundation for their renewed life, and on this faith they are to establish themselves more and more. Praying in the Holy Ghost. These words go best together, though some attach the term, “in the Holy Ghost,” to the former clause. They express a second condition which must be made good, if the readers are to be safe from the seductions which threaten them. Their Christian life, if it is to be proof against these evils, must be fed by prayer, and by prayer of the deepest and most effectual orderprayer which takes its life and power from the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 6:18; Rom 8:26). Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. The “love of God” must have a sense parallel to that of the “mercy of Christ.” It is, therefore, not our love to God, but his love to us. The love which God is revealed in Christ to have to us is that in which they are to keep themselves. So long as they live within its grace they cannot but be secure against the corruptions of men. If they fall away from it, they become an easy prey. And keeping themselves in this love, they are to “look for mercy.” They are then entitled to expect that mercy, and the attitude of expectation will itself be an aid to the keeping of themselves in the love. The mercy of the future is here spoken of as specifically the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ; Jude having in view that advent of Christ which filled the immediate horizon of the early Christians, and to which they looked with an intensity of expectation to us very partially realizable, as the event which would speedily reveal every man’s work and in which mercy would triumph over judgment for the faithful. And this mercy, or, as it also maybe, this expectation, is further described as having nothing less than eternal life for its object and its certain end. So the central idea in this counsel is the necessity of holding by the revealed fact of God’s love in Christ. The first two clauses point to the means by which this is to be made good, and the last clause expresses an attitude of soul which is at once an extension of the central duty and a help to it. And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire. The readings here are so diverse, and so difficult to determine, that some of our best critics take this to be one of the passages in which we have to recognize a corruption of the primitive text now past certain correction. The Received Text is clearly in error at least in one important term. The word which it renders “making a difference,” as if it referred to the readers, is in the same case with the “some,” and refers to the persons who are to be dealt with. It is doubtful, too, whether we have three different classes of persons referred to in three distinct hortatory sentences, or only two such classes. The most recent and best of our English students of the text, Messrs. Westcott and Hort, adopt readings which differ in some respects from those of the Authorized, but agree with it in presenting only two classes of persons. The Revised Version, following many good authorities, both ancient and modern, prefers another form of text with a triple division. Accepting this, we have still more than one uncertainty to take account of. In the first of the three clauses there is the difficulty of deciding between two readings, one of which gives us “on some have mercy,” while the other yields the sense “some convict,” that is to say, bring their sin home to them, or refute their error. The preference is to be given, on the whole, though with some hesitation, to the former of these readings, which is also the more difficult of the two. There is also the difficulty of determining the precise idea expressed by the participle in the same clause. It appears clear enough that it cannot have the sense assigned it by the Authorized Version, namely, that of “making a difference.” But setting this aside, we have still to choose between two ways of taking it. It may have the sense of hesitating or doubting; in which case the class of persons referred to will be those who are not wholly gone in unbelief, but are on the way to it. Such persons are to be regarded as fit objects for anxious, considerate, pitiful treatment. This is a sense which the word undoubtedly bears in several passages of the New Testament. It has also the sanction of the Revised Version, which renders it, “And on some have mercy, who are in doubt.” But it may also have the sense of contending, and the fact that it has already been so used in the present Epistle (Jud 1:9) is a weighty consideration in favour of this view. The rendering then might be, “Some compassionate, when they contend with you” (so Alford, etc.). In tide case the class referred to will be the contentious, of whom there might be different kinds, some more hopeful and reasonable, others less so. Men of this spirit are to be tried first with kindness and consideration. Even when they oppose you and draw off from you, be pitiful toward them; take a compassionate, helpful interest in them. The second clause is best rendered with the Revised Version, “And some save, snatching them out of the fire.” This brings a different class of persons into viewthose who have sunk into corrupt courses which will soon undo them, who are already, indeed, in the penal fires of wrong, but yet are not beyond the possibility of rescue if quick and vigorous measures are taken with them. It is generally supposed that Jude has in view here the figure of the “brand plucked from the burning,” which occurs in Zec 3:2. If so, the position in which this second class stands is represented as one of the last possible peril. The terms are strong and vivid enough for this. They mean that there is no time to lose, that all depends upon the prompt use of efficient measures, however forcible and unwelcome. The third clause then runs, “And some compassionate with fear.” It points to a class who are to be dealt with in the same way as the first class. Yet there is a difference between them. This third class of persons is more dangerous to those who seek their good. They too are to be tried with active, helpful pity; but this is to be done “with fear.” In their case the life is so treacherous, the error so insidious, that their Christian benefactors incur grave risk in coming to close terms with them, and require to practice an anxious vigilance lest they be themselves led astray. Hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. The idea of “filthy garments” occurs in the same passage of Zechariah already referred to, and the term” garment” (here the tunic, or inner robe) is elsewhere used in a figurative sense (Rev 3:4). Here it points to everything that is in contact with pollution. The clause seems to be added in order to give greater emphasis to the need of “fear” in dealing with men of the kind in question. Not only are their impurities to be zealously avoided, but all the accessories of these impuritieseverything, in short, that is in any way connected with them. If this is the case, then this last is the most dangerous and hopeless of the three clauses mentioned. They are those “on whom profound pity is all that we dare bestow, and that in fear and trembling, lest by contact with them we may be brought within the influence of the deadly contamination that clings to all their surroundings” (Plummet). Only the pity which is to be shown them is not mere feeling, but a compassion which implies some active, though anxious interest in their rescue.
Jud 1:24, Jud 1:25
The Epistle closes with a doxology of a high and solemn strain, resembling in some respects that with which the Epistle to the Romans concludes, and couched in terms befitting what has just been said of danger and duty. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling. The writer has counseled the readers to keep themselves in the love of God. He has also set before them the attitude they ought to adopt toward different classes, and has not concealed the peril to themselves which the discharge of Christian duty to others may involve. Recognizing how short the way is that brotherly counsel or personal effort can carry one in these solemn and arduous obligations, he now reminds his readers of a higher power that is available for their help and protection, and commends them to that as their best, their only security. The risk of falling or stumbling, as it rather means, is great. Only the omnipotence of God can “keep” them from it or protect them against it, the word for “keeping” being one which expresses the idea of “guarding.” And to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. The terms here again arc exceedingly vivid, the one which is rendered “present” meaning to “set one up” or “make one stand,” and the “faultless” being the adjective “without blemish” which is applied to the Levitical offerings in the Old Testament, and to Christ himself in 1Pe 1:19. The “glory” here in view is that of the last day, when he to whom all judgment is committed returns to execute that judgment in his own glory and that of his Father (Luk 9:26; Tit 2:13). The “exceeding joy” expresses the feeling with which it shall be given to the faithful to meet that day. The Revised Version, therefore, more correctly renders it, “And to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy.” Weak and vulnerable as they are, God’s grace is mighty to do these two things for themto protect them through time, and at the end of time to make them stand the scrutiny of the Judge like men in whom no blemish is discovered, and to whom that day brings exultant joy. To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and power, before all time, and now, and for evermore (or, unto all the ages). So the Revised Version renders it, in accordance with the best-authenticated text. Documentary evidence renders it necessary to omit the “wise” in the “only wise God” of the Authorized Version, to insert the clause, “through our Lord Jesus Christ,” to omit the “and” before the “majesty,” and to adopt the extended expression of duration in the closing sentence. Thus the largest possible ascription of praise is made to God. It is the ascription of an honour which is confessed to belong to him eternally, before the world was, as well as in the present, and on to the eternity which is yet to enter. This is his in his character of SaviourPreserver of them that are tending to fall, Redeemer of the weak and sinful; and, therefore, it is “through Jesus Christ.”
HOMILETICS
Jud 1:1, Jud 1:2
“Called, beloved in God the Father, preserved for Jesus Christ.”
Three designations expressing the three great facts of grace which make the honour of God’s saints. There is the callthe act of God which takes us out of the world of evil and brings us into the kingdom of Christ. But this call implies that we are the subjects of an eternal love which holds us within its unfailing arms, and of a protective power which keeps us for Christ whose possession we are designed to be. To these three facts of grace we owe the good which enriches our life. In virtue of these the three great blessings of mercy, peace, and love are ours by right, and form the proper subjects of prayer in our behalf. This selecting and separating operation of the Spirit, that infallible purpose of the Father’s love, these rights which the Son has in us and in consequence of which we are destined to be his servants and his possession,these are the immovable foundations of our security. But the same high facts of grace are likewise the measure of our responsibility, and the irresistible argument for a life which should be superior to whatever evil may threaten or tempt it.
Jud 1:3, Jud 1:4
Error not to be trifled with, but to be earnestly dealt with.
“It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith,” etc. Least of all is the kind of error which acts upon the moral life to be lightly thought of or suffered to pass unchallenged. One of the most difficult, yet most imperative, of the Christian duties is to admonish and fortify brethren who are ready to yield to the seductions of error. The bond of a “common salvation” of which we are partakers together, pledges us to the discharge of such duty. The “faith” is the deposit of truth. The message of Christ is spirit and life. But the new spirit and the new life, in which the power of his gospel consists, rise out of the facts and truths of revelation, and work through these. To the Church universal, the whole body of believers, has been committed, therefore, a sacred deposit of truth, here called the faith, embracing evangelical history, doctrine, and precept. This body of truth is a permanent trust. It has survived the times of the Church’s greatest declension, and by it she has lived. It is her chief advantage and distinction, as the possession of the “oracles of God” was the chief advantage of the Jew over the Gentile (Rom 3:2). It is something delivered to us, not elaborated by our own thought. How great the responsibility attaching to our stewardship therein! The trustee’s duty is to keep this deposit intact, to protect it against corruption, and to hand it on to others.
Jud 1:5-7
The invasion of the Church by error is no accident or surprise.
“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this,” etc. It is not to be taken “as though some strange thing happened” (1Pe 4:12). Faith is apt to be staggered or darkened by it. Yet it is to be anticipated. It has been the subject of prophecy. It is provided for in the Divine guidance of the Church, and it works to its own retribution. The history of God’s ways, too, is the best corrective for faith’s perplexities and fears in presence of the march of error. The history shows that what is, is only that which also has been. The dread things in its record bear witness to the fact that victory is not on the side of evil, but that there is a defeat predetermined for ita penalty which follows it by a certain law. God’s terrible deeds in righteousness attest the temporal punishment of sin. The Old Testament history, in which these are registered, is the nurse of a faith which should be humble, strong, courageous, hopeful. To neglect it is certain loss, It is gain to be “put in remembrance” of it. “Them that believed not”the explanation both of the sin, and of the destruction of the generation in the wilderness. So the evil heart of unbelief is the final secret of guilt and error, the hidden laboratory of all perversions of truth and all depravations of the moral life, the subtle inspiration of enmity to God and defiance to law.
Jud 1:8-11
The mutual dependence of belief and life.
“Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh,” etc. Religion is the strength and security of morality. Morality is the outcome and flower of religion. There must be some relation, therefore, between the truth of the religious belief and the purity and elevation of the moral life. A doctrine of God and things Divine which becomes mistaken, imperfect, or corrupt, cannot but affect the conduct which a man allows himself. A life of license is the natural result of a denial of God and Christ. Morals are imperiled and impaired as spiritual truth is scorned or depraved. The abuse of grace is the most fatal canker in the Church. The corruption of the best is the worst. The angel that falls becomes a devil. The grace of God, corrupted, is turned to lasciviousness. The liberty of the gospel, when perverted, becomes an occasion to the flesh. Humility is the true note of dignity. The highest natures are the most modest and self-restrained; the lowest and most ignorant, the rashest and the most self-willed. Reverence is the safeguard both of faith and of virtue. The latest developments of error and unbelief are no novelty. The corruptions of Jude’s time were but the corruptions of ancient days. The evils which crept into the primitive Church of Christ were but the renewals of the “way of Cain,” the “error of Balsam,” the “gainsaying of Korah.” Sin only repeats itself as it perpetuates itself. Under many new forms we recognize only the old sins of envy, avarice, and pride.
Jud 1:12, Jud 1:13
A perfect Church a vain expectation.
“These are spots in your feasts of charity,” etc. The teaching of our Lord’s great parables gives us no warrant to look for a perfect Church till the end. Popular ideas of the purity of the primitive Church are far from being borne out by fact. The New Testament writings themselves, especially the Epistles to the Corinthians, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse, indicate with the utmost plainness how mixed the early Churches were, and to what an extent they-suffered from grievous and varied evils. Neither have we any scriptural warrant for setting up impracticable terms of admission to the Christian Church, or impracticable conditions of discipline within it. The facility with which the most sacred usages and ordinances admit of abuse, e.g., the perversion of the simple and beautiful institution of the love-feasts, shows the necessity of jealous watchfulness over ecclesiastical practice, and the wisdom of denying ourselves the most appropriate forms for the expression of Christian life and worship, when these become misunderstood, lifeless, or associated with evil. The most fatal form of selfishness is the selfishness which takes advantage of religion, and assumes the cloak of spirituality. Mark Jude’s lurid picture of the brood of deceits, sensualities, and blasphemies that spring from it. Study, too, his equally lurid picture of the degradation, the emptiness, the death-in-life of such a lifethe treacherous hopes like rainless clouds with which it beguiles and embitters, the barrenness worse than that of exhausted autumnal trees to which it is doomed, the shame which is the issue of its passionate license.There is a double punishment of fleshly sins. Their retribution comes in the penal law which works in nature and makes them in part their own avengers in time. It comes, too, in the nameless awards of eternity, which axe in reserve.
Jud 1:14-19
Future judgment an anticipation of nature and a truth of revelation.
“To execute judgment upon all,” etc. Its declared era is the Lord’s advent; its declared functions are those of correction and retribution. “Great swelling words “the natural language of the errorist and the deceiver. “Very many such words are recorded in Church history, and that, too, as spoken in justification of unbridled lust. Some of the more openly abominable belong to the Gnostic and other antinomian heretics of early times, when men were taught that by faith and what was called knowledge they were raised above all restraints of law and obligations of moralitybecame, in fact, incapable of sin, and especially so superior to matter and all material influences that no degradation or pollution of the body could possibly affect them in any way whatever, any more than the ocean is defiled by what you throw into it. The later centuries also supply abundant illustrations of the text, as in the arrogant pretensions of popery, the extravagances of the libertines in the Reformation, and the Mormon and ‘free love’ and spiritualistic ravings of our own day” (Lillie). “Mockers”the class most impervious to grace, the most hopeless to reclaim. The rise of such is the most deadly symptom of evil in the Church. But the sins of discontent with providence, immoral license, swelling vanity, cringing servility, and malignant scoffing are near of kin. “The lack of the Spirit” is the last word in the description of impiety. The grace of that Spirit is the sole guarantee of the higher life. The loss of that Spirit is the way of death.
Jud 1:20, Jud 1:21
The law of Christian safetyto keep ourselves in the love of God.
“Keep yourselves in the love of God,” etc. The soul’s one asylum and retreat is the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ. The act of grace which calls us to the Christian life introduces us to the knowledge of that love, and brings us within its pavilion. The sum of all subsequent Christian duty is to be true to it; the sum of all Christian wisdom is to suffer nothing to turn us away from it. But our continuance within it demands that we persevere in building up the structure of a holy life on the foundation of the faith given us; that we nourish and strengthen that life by prayer, and that we keep the eye of expectation on the future. The Christian life, too, is necessarily a progressive life. Growth is its security against decay, and its protection against temptation. And the prayer that nourishes and strengthens is prayer in the’ Holy Ghostprayer prompted by him, directed in its subjects and its frames by him, interpreted in its deep and unutterable longings by him. “So great is the sloth and coldness of our carnal nature,” says Calvin, “that no one can pray as he ought unless moved by the Spirit of God; even as we are so prone to distrust and fear that no one dare call God ‘Father’ save by the dictation of the same Spirit. Hence comes the desire, hence the earnestness and vehemence, hence the activity, hence the confidence of obtaining, hence, finally, those unutterable groanings of which St. Paul speaks. Therefore not without cause does Jude teach them that none can pray as he ought save by the guidance of the Spirit.” The judicial decisions of the future are committed to the Son of man. The hope of mercy in the day of his coming is one of the gifts of the regenerating and sanctifying Spirit. That hope is the light which brightens the believer’s path in the darkened present, and makes him proof against the seductions of sin and error. The expectation of that mercy is the inspiration of his courage; it is the call from beyond the stars which makes it easy for him to hold by the love and truth of God, and bid away whatever would tempt him to depart from these.
Jud 1:22, Jud 1:23
The law of Christian duty to others in times of peril and evil.
“And of some have compassion,” etc. There is a duty to all, but the duty is not the same to each. Christian wisdom must decide how to distinguish between cases, and to act in each so as at once to seek the good of others and to keep ourselves pure. “Different courses are to be pursued according to their different circumstances, characters, and dispositions. Some must be dealt with sternly, even as that Hymeneus and Alexander, whom St. Paul ‘delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.’ Some may be saved by promptness and decision even from the extremity of danger. Some, while they awaken compassion, must yet be dealt with tremblingly, lest he who seeks to save them himself suffer from the contact. Such is obviously the part of wisdom. An insight into character, and a ready tact in adapting one’s efforts to its various phases, is an important qualification in those who would win souls from the error of their ways. All souls are to be cared for; but not all by the same methods” (Gardiner).
Jud 1:24, Jud 1:25
The grace of God the believer’s first and last dependence.
“Now unto him that is able to keep you,” etc. Only his power can protect us from our own weakness and sin and error, and make us capable of standing, and purify us for the manifestation of the great day. But that grace is sufficient, and it is at hand to give success to our own efforts in keeping ourselves in the asylum of God’s love. “Full of consolation,” says the writer immediately quoted, “must have been the thought in days when danger pressed on every side, and ungodly men, bringing with them all error of doctrine and viciousness of life, had crept into the very fold whither the faithful had turned for safety. Equally comforting must it prove m an age when the name of Christ is made the cloak for strange oppositions to his teaching and his example, and when in the wide wilderness of error it is difficult to discern the narrow pathway of truth.”
HOMILIES BY T. CROSKERY
Jud 1:1, Jud 1:2
Authorship and salutation.
This brief Epistle is remarkable for its triple order of ideas, carried through to the very end. The first instance occurs in the account the author gives of himself”Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.”
I. AUTHORSHIP.
1. Who was Jude? There are two persons of the name represented as relatives of James. There is Jude the apostle, brother or son of James the martyr (Luk 6:16; Act 1:13), who is also called Lebbaeus; and there is this Jude, the brother of Jamesthat is James the Just, the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19), president of the council at Jerusalem (Act 15:13). The author of this Epistle was, therefore, a younger brother of our Lord and a younger son of Joseph and Mary. He was not an apostle, else he would probably have called himself so. He did not believe in our Lord during his ministry (Joh 7:5), but became a convert after the Resurrection (Act 1:14).
2. His official position. He was “a servant of Jesus Christ,” not merely in the larger sense in which all saints are so, but in the special sense of his official relation to the Church as an evangelist.
(1) It is an honour to be in the service of such a Master.
(2) Our service ought to he
(a) to him alone (Mat 6:24);
(b) and to be a diligent, cheerful, and constant service.
(3) Those who would lead others to serve Christ must themselves set the example.
3. His relationship to James. Jude mentions this fact:
(1) Partly that he may distinguish himself from others like Judas the apostle and Judas Iscariot.
(2) Partly to substantiate his claim to a hearing from his relationship to one more celebrated and better known in the Church; James was at once “the Lord’s brother,” “a pillar in the Church” (Gal 2:9), and a saintly character.
(3) Partly as implying an agreement in doctrine between James and himself.
(4) Had Jude been an apostle, he would hardly have mentioned this relationship, inasmuch as he could have asserted a much stronger claim.
(5) It may be askedWhy did he not rather mention his relationship to Christ himself?
(a) He may have been led by religious feeling, like James himself in his Epistle, to omit all reference to this matter.
(b) The ascension of Christ had altered the character of this earthly relationship.
(c) Such a course would have been inconsistent with the spirit and teaching of our Lord himself, who taught that those who did his will were more nearly allied to him than earthly kin (Luk 11:27, Luk 11:28).
II. THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS ADDRESSED. “To them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and preserved for Jesus Christ.” Here, again, we have a triple order of ideas. He addresses true saints of God.
1. They were called. This is the familiar Pauline description of the saints. They are called
(1) out of darkness into God’s marvelous light (1Pe 2:9).
(2) The calling is “according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28).
(3) Not according to works (2Ti 1:9).
(4) It is a high calling,
(5) a holy calling; and. therefore saints ought to live suitably thereto.
2. They were beloved in God the Father. This is a unique expression in the New Testament. The tense of the participle implies the love as a continuously existing fact. The Father is the Source of all love-experiences, the sphere in which love is displayed; for God is love.
3. They were preserved for Jesus Christ.
(1) Their preservation does not depend upon their own holiness or effort.
(2) It depends on God’s purpose, on his calling, on his grace, lie is able to “keep them from failing” (verse 24). Christ shall “confirm them to the end” (1Co 1:8); no one shall pluck them out of his hand (Joh 10:29); their seed abideth in them (1Jn 3:9); the fear of the Lord in their hearts shall keep them from departing from him (Jer 32:40); they are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (1Pe 1:5).
(3) They are preserved
(a) from the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13);
(b) from the evil of the world (Joh 17:15);
(c) from falling (verse 24);
(d) from the touch of the evil one (1Jn 5:18).
(4) They are preserved for the day of Christ’s coming. That signifies their steadfast perseverance till death. The Apostle Paul placed his stuff, as an immortal deposit, in Christ’s hands, with the full persuasion that it would be safely kept “till that day” (2Ti 1:12). The saints are kept for the glory of Immanuel in his everlasting kingdom.
III. THE SALUTATION. “Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied.” Another triplet.
1. Mercy is from the Father. It is his distinguishing attribute. “His mercy endureth for ever.” There is forgiving mercy, providing mercy, restrain-inn mercy, restoring mercy, crowning mercy. He has “bowels of mercy.” He “delights to show mercy.”
2. Peace is through the Son.
(1) He is our Peace (Eph 2:14), as “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (Isa 53:5).
(2) He gives peace (Joh 14:27).
(3) He preached peace (Eph 2:17). Therefore great shall be the peace of God’s children.
3. Love is from the Holy Ghost. He sheds it abroad in the heart (Rom 5:5). There is “a love of the Spirit” (Rom 15:30). The Christian has experience of love objective and subjective.
4. Jude prays that these graces may be multiplied.
(1) This implies that saints are till death incomplete in their graces. There never will come a time in which this prayer may not be offered for saints in the flesh.
(2) This prayer has an eye to the glory of God as well as to the comfort and peace of believers.
(3) The Lord is always willing to impart his best gifts.
(4) He has abundance of grace for all his children, and for all the exigencies of their life.T.C.
Jud 1:3
The purpose and occasion of this Epistle.
It was to exhort the saints to steadfastness in contending for the truth which was then threatened by an insidious party of antinomians who had entered the Church. Love prompted the writing of the Epistle, as we may infer from the term “beloved” by which the author addresses his readers.
I. HIS CONCERN FOR THEIR WELFARE. “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you.”
1. It was a, ready, prompt, entire diligence, because there was danger in delay, and the constraint of love was upon him.
2. It is right that ministers should be diligent about the most important concerns, the interests of truth and the welfare of the flock.
3. Jude showed his concern for the saints by committing his thoughts to writing.
(1) Writing gave them permanence. Words pass away, but writing remains. “This shall be written for the generation to come.”
(2) Writing secured a wider circle of hearers. Every age of the Church, as well as the first, has been benefited by this brief letter of Jude.
(3) It is a great sin to undervalue the written Word of God.
II. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT OF HIS WRITING. “Our common salvation.”
1. The nature of this salvation.
(1) It is the deliverance of man from the guilt and power of sin and the complete redemption of his soul and body in the day of judgment.
(2) It begins in the present life.
(3) God has given us his Word to show the way of salvation.
2. It is the common salvation of all sailors. “Our common salvation.”
(1) Christ, the Saviour, is common to all the saints.
(2) There is but one common way to heaven. There is but “one faith.”
(3) The blessings of salvation are common to all believers, Jew and Gentile.
(4) It is a salvation of which the early Christians had an experimental knowledge; it is “our common salvation.”
III. THE NECESSITY FOR HIS WRITING. “I was constrained to write unto yon.” This arose:
1. From the evil doctrines of the antinomians.
2. From their subtle arts.
3. From the too great readiness of the saints to be deceived.
4. The exposure of seducers is a necessary part of the ministry.
IV. THE NATURE OF THE EXHORTATION JUDE ADDRESSED TO THE SAINTS. “Exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” Christians must suffer the word of exhortation, which is an excellent help to religious steadfastness.
1. The matter to be contended for.
(1) It is the doctrine of faith, or the truth which is to be received in order to our salvation. It is called “faith” because it is the instrument used by the Holy Spirit to work faith.
(2) It is the faith “delivered” by God, not discovered by man. The natural man can no more perceive than he can discover the things which are of God (1Co 2:1-16 :24).
(3) It is the faith delivered “once for all.” No other faith will ever be given. No new doctrines are to be added to the circle of faith, though the truth may be cast in new forms, and shaped according to the intellectual and spiritual exigencies of each age. Therefore
(a) it is a great sin to despise the faith delivered to us;
(b) we ought to be thankful for it;
(c) we ought to receive and obey it in the love of it;
(d) we ought to guard it against heretical perversions.
(4) It is a sacred deposit placed in the hands of trusteesdelivered to the saints. Not to holy prophets and apostles merely, but to all saints, even in ages destitute of prophets and apostles.
(a) It is a solemn trust, involving great responsibilities.
(b) The saints are to keep the faith for their own salvation and comfort.
(c) They are to keep it for generations to come.
(d) How much is the world indebted to the saints!
(e) The trustees of the faith ought to have holy hands and holy hearts.
2. The duty of the saints to contend for the faith. This duty implies
(1) the importance of this faith, for it is the best things that Satan is most anxious to destroy;
(2) the presence of adversaries seeking to corrupt or destroy it;
(3) the need of Divine strength for contending for it with effect;
(4) the various ways in which the saints are to contend for it
(a) by refuting and convincing gainsayers,
(b) by praying for its success,
(c) by confessing it boldly before men,
(d) by mutual exhortation,
(e) by holy example,
(f) by suffering for the truth.T.C.
Jud 1:4
Reasons to enforce the duty of contending for the faith.
The principal reason is the presence of antinomian errorists in the Church.
I. THE ENTRANCE OF WICKED ERRORISTS INTO THE CHURCH. “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old set forth unto this condemnation.”
1. These men are not named, either because Jude did not care to give them the celebrity their vanity might have desired, or because their names were already known to the saints.
2. It is not possible for man to guard the Church against the entrance of such men. Even apostles themselves could not keep the Church pure.
3. The entrance of errorists is usually effected by hypocritical arts. They are “false apostles,” “deceitful workers,” “deceiving the hearts of the simple,” “drawing many disciples after them,” “false teachers privily bringing in damnable hercules.” They usually conceal their real opinions; they mix wholesome truth with destructive errors; and they preach doctrines palatable to the corrupt nature of man. They usually effect an air of novelty or originality in their teaching. The best Christians may therefore be sometimes mistaken in such seducers.
4. The presence of such men in the Church does not destroy the being of the Church.
5. Their destructive influence and the retribution that awaits them were predicted beforehand. For “they were of old set forth unto this condemnation.” Not in the prophecies by Peter and Paul, but in the Old Testament; for the phrase, “of old,” refers to something in history. The condemnation is that illustrated by the examples recorded in the following verses.
6. It is needful that Christians should be on the watch against the entrance and the influence of wicked errorists.
II. THE CHARACTER OF THESE MEN. “Ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
1. They were godless men.
(1) They denied to God the honour due to him. They lived without relation to God. They were practically “without God in the world.” “In their works they denied him.” “They called not upon the Lord.”
(2) They gave to the world, to sin, to folly, the allegiance that was due to God. They “served the creature more than the Creator.”
(3) They sought to honour God in a wrong manner. They worshipped not according to his Word; and their service was selfish, or partial, or inconstant, or profane.
(4) Ungodliness leads to all wicked practices.
2. They perverted the doctrines of grace. “Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness;” arguing, as Trapp says, from mercy to liberty, which is the devil’s logic.
(1) The true design of the grace of God. It is that “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live soberly, righteously, godly, in this world,” As the free gift of God, our election and our calling being both of grace, we are bound to see that we receive it not in vain (2Co 6:1).
(2) The perversion of this grace is effected
(a) by men “using their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness” (1Pe 2:16), “for an occasion to the flesh” (Gal 5:13), by “continuing in sin that grace may abound” (Rom 6:1);
(b) by rejecting the Law as a rule of life;
(c) by abusing their liberty to the offence of weak consciences.
(3) The heinousness of, such conduct.
(a) It implies the sin of hypocrisy.
(b) It is a profound dishonour to God and his doctrine.
(c) It argues a boundless ingratitude.
(d) It is almost the most hopeless of all sins against God.
3. They denied Jesus Christ. Wearing the livery of Christ, they were all the while vassals of the devil.
(1) Christ is the only Lord and Master of believers. This Lordship is based upon the idea of property. We are the Lord’s, whether living or dead (Rom 14:9).
(a) He gives laws to his servants.
(b) He binds them lovingly to obedience.
(c) He rewards them according to their service.
(d) He has power both to give and to take away.
(e) There is no escape for his enemies.
We may, therefore, infer:
(a) How serious an error it is to deny Christ’s Deity!
(b) How foolish to trust in any other Saviour!
(1) How blessed are believers in possessing such a Lord!
(2) These errorists denied this Lord.
(a) Doctrinally;perhaps, like the Gnostics, they denied his true Deity and his true humanity.
(b) Practically,
() by opposing his gospel;
() by apostasy from his truth;
(c) by a wicked and lewd life. These men, by rejecting Christ’s authority as well as his salvation, “forsook their own mercy.”T.C.
Jud 1:5
First example of Divine vengeance.
Jude then proceeds to give three instances of this sortthe first being that of the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness.
I. THE NECESSITY OF REMINDING SAINTS OF FAMILIAR SCRIPTURE FACTS. “Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things once for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not.”
1. Every private Christian ought to be well acquainted with the Scriptures. Jude concedes that those he addressed were so. The Bible is a book for the people as well as for ministers. Knowledge is highly commendable in a Christian (Rom 15:14), as well as goodness.
2. The best of people need to have their pure minds stirred up by way of remembrance; for memory is too often “like the sieve which holds the bran and lets the flour go.”
II. THE SAINTS REMINDED OF A FAMOUS DELIVERANCE. “I removed his shoulder from the burden, and his hands were delivered from the pots” (Psa 81:6).
1. No difficulties could hinder Israel’s deliverance from Egypt.
2. Israel went down to Egypt a family, and emerged out of it a nation.
3. This nation curried the destinies of the world in its bosom.
III. THE SAINTS REMINDED OF A GREAT DESTRUCTION. The Lord dealt first in mercy, then afterward in judgment.
1. Destruction overtook the Israelites from plague, fire, serpents, earthquake, sword. The wilderness was strewn besides with the carcasses of all except those of twenty years old and under, who alone were privileged to enter the land of Canaan.
2. This destruction was a disappointment of high hopes as well as a fall from a high position of privilege.
3. Yet it was but partial. The stock of Israel was spared. And the doom was long deferred, so as to give more than a generation of time for repentance.
4. The Lord’s judgment in this case proves that punishment cannot be averted by privileges abused.
IV. THE SAINTS REMINDED OF THE CAUSE OF THIS DESTRUCTION. It was unbelief. “They could not enter in because of unbelief” (Heb 4:6).
1. Difficulties soon discover the untrustful heart.
2. Unbelievers forsake their own mercies, and are their own worst enemies.
3. There is no folly like unbelief. “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
4. The end of unbelief is utter and absolute destructions.T.C.
Jud 1:6
Second example of Divine vengeance.
This is the case of the fallen angels.
I. THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL ANGELS. It is expressly asserted in Scripture. There is no greater moral difficulty in understanding the existence of such beings than in understanding the existence of evil men. They are spoken of as “angels that sinned” (2Pe 2:4), as devils “who enter into men” (Luk 8:30), as beings to be judged by the saints (1Co 6:3).
II. THEIR REVOLT AND DEFECTION FROM GOD. “And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation.” They are represented in the parallel passage in Peter as simply “the angels that sinned; ‘ and the devil is spoken of as not “abiding in the truth,” and pride is assigned apparently as the cause of his fall (1Ti 3:6). “It is hard to be high and not high-minded.” But the allusion here is rather to the angels rejecting their high dignity of position in subjection to God, and departing from their habitations in heaven, as the consequence of the alienation caused by pride.
1. Their revolt was a dishonour to God.
(1) They slighted the place of his glory.
(2) They were the highest order of his creatures, and might have found their happiness in obedient service.
2. An evil nature cannot endure either the joys or the holiness of heaven.
3. It is a sin for the highest being to exempt himself from service.
4. The angels have a habitation in heaven.
III. THE PUNISHMENT OF THE EVIL ANGELS. “He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
1. There is a present punishment. They are “kept in everlasting bonds under darkness.”
(1) There are the bonds of. God’s power. “The strong man is bound by a stronger than he.” “The old dragon was bound for a thousand years.”
(2) There are the bonds of sin, as if to account for the dread consistency of him “who sinneth from the beginning” (1Jn 3:8).
(3) There are the bonds of a guilty conscience, which cause the devils to tremble as they believe (Jas 2:19).
(4) Yet restraint or torment cannot reform the evil angels.
(5) The devils cannot hurt us unless we get within the compass of their chains. Calvin says, “Wherever they go they drag with them their own chains, and remain involved in darkness.”
(6) The darkness under which they are held points to their miserable condition, as signified by their separation from the presence of God, brought about as it was by their own act, and utterly irrevocable.
2. There is a future punishment. “Unto the judgment of the great day.”
(1) The Lord will judge the angels in that day with the saints as his assessors (1Co 6:3).
(2) The devil wilt be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.
(3) There will be no further seduction of the wicked, and no further hurt to the elect.T.C.
Jud 1:7
Third example of Divine vengeance.
This is the case of the cities of the plain.
I. THE CAUSE OF THEIR PUNISHMENT. “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh.”
1. God often assigns the most fertile places to the greatest sinners. Sodom is compared to “the garden of the Lord.”
2. Prosperity often becomes an occasion for much wickedness and impiety.
3. The inhabitants of these cities of the plain were guilty of fornication and unnatural crimes.
(1) These were personal sins of a heinous character. They were sins against both soul and body. No whoremonger shall enter the kingdom of God (1Co 6:9), and fornication is a sin “against the body itself” (1Co 6:18).
(2) They were social sins. They affect the family and society.
(3) They were sacrilegious sins. The body, which is a temple of the Holy Ghost, allows its members to become those of a harlot (1Co 6:15).
(4) They were sins not to be named among saints (Eph 5:3).
4. The causes of these sins were
(1) fullness of bread (Eze 16:49), and
(2) idleness.
II. THE SEVERITY OF THEIR PUNISHMENT. “Suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
1. There may be allusion to the rain of fire that destroyed the cities, and to the volcanic nature of the soil which underlies their present site.
2. But that destruction is only a type of the worse destruction that overtook the guilty inhabitants.
(1) No “dogs” shall be admitted into the New Jerusalem (Rev 22:15). “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29). The justice of God is not abolished by his mercy.
(2) Yet the rejection of the gospel is a worse sin than that of the Sodomites. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for Capernaum and Bethsaida (Mat 10:15).
III. THESE SODOMITES WERE PUNISHED AS AN EXAMPLE.
1. God shows thus his hatred of sin.
2. His desire to prevent our ruin.
3. The inexcusableness of those who sin in the face of such examples.
4. We need under the gospel the restraints of fear as well as the allurements of love.
5. The same sins recur in every age, and therefore need to be very pointedly condemned.
6. The sins of the Sodomites are more heinous if committed in this dispensation of light and privilege.
7. Let us be thankful to God for such warnings against sin.T.C.
Jud 1:8
The character of the libertines in Jude’s day.
Three triplets again, to correspond to the triplets of Jud 1:5-7. Mark the sins of these libertines.
I. GROSS LICENTIOUSNESS. “They defile the flesh.” Thus they resemble the Sodomites. The early Gnosticism had an antinomian as well as an ascetic side.
1. Sins of unchastity inflict deep dishonour on the body. They defile that body which ought to be a temple of the Holy Ghost.
2. They lead men, into destructive error. “The lusts make the affections to be judges; and where affection sways, judgment decays.” The errorists of primitive times were men “of corrupt minds,” teaching “things they ought not for filthy lucre’s sake, serving their own belly.” Solomon says, “Evil men understand not judgment.”
II. THEY ARE HOSTILE TO THE DIVINE LORDSHIP. “They set at naught dominion.” Like the fallen angels. The dominion here spoken of is not human magistracy, but the Lordship of God Almighty. They deny the Lord Jesus; They will not have this Man to reign over them. This evil temper springs:
1. From pride.
2. From self-sufficiency.
3. From hatred of God.
4. From anger at all Divine restraint in their evil actions.
III. THEY REVILE THE ANGELIC HIERARCHY. “They rail at dignities.” Like the murmurers in the wilderness. They rail at celestial lordships.
1. Great is the excess of an unsanctified tongue.
2. Fools rail at powers of whom they know nothing.
3. It is a great sin to put dishonour on celestial beings whom God has so highly honoured.
IV. THE FOUNTAIN FROM WHICH THESE SINS ISSUE. “In their dreamings.” This threefold manifestation of an evil mind has its origin in the self-delusion of sinners. Their dreaming implies:
1. That they live in an unreal world, and have no true conception of the serious nature of sin.
2. That they are unconscious of the damager that threatens their immortal souls.
3. That they are insensible to all the warnings of coming judgment.
4. Dreaming is dangerous, for, like the hypocrite, the sinner shall fly away as a dream (Job 20:8).T.C.
Jud 1:9
An angelic example for human imitation.
Jude then refers to an extraordinary incident not recorded in Scripture, but evidently contained in the old Jewish traditions respecting a contest of Michael the archangel with the devil.
I. THE ARCHANGEL MICHAELWHO WAS HE?
1. He appears as “one of the chief princes” who stood up for God’s people against the Persians (Dan 10:13).
2. He appears as fighting. “Michael and his angels” against the devil and his angels (Rev 12:7).
3. He is probably the archangel whose voice is to be heard at the period of our Lord’s descent to judgment. (1Th 4:16.)
4. He is probably at the head of the good angels, as the devil is represented as at the head of the evil angels.
5. High as he is in rank, he is most active in dutiful service to God.
II. THE STRIFE BETWEEN MICHAEL AND THE DEVIL. “But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment.”
1. The incident here referred to occurred necessarily after Moses’ death.
2. The dispute did not arise, as some think, from the effort of type devil to prevent the concealment of the body of Moses, whom God buried that no man might know the place of his sepulture. The reason usually assigned for the secrecy of the burial is that the Israelites might have worshipped the body of their great lawgiver. But there is no evidence that the Israelites ever at any time showed a disposition to worship dead men’s bones. Their inclination was rather to worship the powers of nature.
3. An ingenious and plausible explanation has been given of this strife in this wise.
(1) We know that Moses and Elias appeared together at the Transfiguration (Luk 9:29-33). They are called “two men.” Elias was certainly in the bodya glorified body, no doubt. Does not the similarity of statement imply that Moses was likewise in the body?
(2) This would imply that Moses was raised up after his burial, but before he saw corruption, and was taken to heaven like Elijah and Enoch. God buried him, and the archangel watched over him that he should not see corruption. But why should the devil interfere with the archangel’s watch? Is it that the devil has “the power of death” (Heb 2:14)? Is it that he has an interest in the corruption of our bodies, as the completion of that physical death which enters into the wages of sin? The contest may have arisen from the effort of Michael, on the one side, to secure the body of Moses from corruption till the moment when he, with his angels, would carry it into heaven, and from the effort of the devil, on the other side, to inflict the last stigma of death upon the great Israelite. This explanation seems more plausible than any other that has been suggested of this mysterious conflict between the heads of the principalities of the spirit-world. The conflict suggests that:
(a) Sin and holiness must necessarily come into conflict wherever they encounter each other.
(b) Michael overcomes the devil. “He that is for us is far greater than all they that be against us.”
III. THE DEPORTMENT OF MICHAEL IN THIS STRIFE WITH THE DEVIL. “He durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”
1. It would have been inconsistent with angelical perfection to rail against the devil.
2. There is no cowardice in Michael not daring to sin.
3. What is wrong for angels cannot be right for men to do.
4. Michael left the decision of the strife absolutely in God’s hands.
5. God’s power restrains that of the devil.
6. The thought that we have a God into whose hands we may commit our cause ought to make us patient, forbearing, and forgiving.T.C.
Jud 1:10
The deplorable perversion of knowledge.
This verse is a practical application of the historic reference to the archangel Michael.
I. THE LESSON OF IGNORANT DEPRECIATION. “But these rail at whatsoever things they know not.” These were unseen spiritual powers whom they treat with mocking irreverence.
1. The ignorance in question is that conceited and contented ignorance of which the psalmist speaks. “They know not nor will understand, but walk on in darkness.” They are “willingly ignorant” (Rom 1:28). None are so ready to speak as the ignorant. Or, it is ignorance of things not possible for man to know in his present life, and is therefore excusable.
2. The sinfulness of railing at such things.
(1) It is great folly, for it is railing at what is the result of man’s infirmity or his limited powers. “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and a shame to him” (Pro 18:13).
(2) It is great presumption.
3. It is great wickedness; for it is to impute evil where none may exist. It is to rejoice in the evil which may only exist in our own thoughts. How great is the sin of railing at things which are worthy! We see how corrupt affections blind the judgment.
4. We ought to reprove known evil, and to praise what we know to be good.
II. THE LESSON OF THE RUIN WROUGHT BY SENSUAL KNOWLEDGE. “And what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things they corrupt themselves.”
1. The range and scope of natural knowledge. Jude refers here to the familiar objects of sense as equally obvious to both man and beast.
(1) These evil persons, like the irrational animals, readily discover the means of gratifying their desires.
(2) They receive all their blessings, like the beasts, without thought or thanks to the Giver.
(3) They cannot improve them spiritually any more than the beasts which only live to eat.
(4) They use them to excess, wallowing like swine in the mire of mere sensual enjoyments.
(5) They are impatient of restraint in proportion to the full enjoyment of natural bounties.
2. The corruption that springs out of mere things of sense.
(1) These evil men, by their abuse of natural blessings, bring disease upon themselves.
(2) They corrupt their moral nature. “Wine and women take away the heart” (Hos 4:11). Outward enjoyments make no man excel in beauty of character.
(3) They are corrupted eternally. “Satan lies in ambush behind our lawful enjoyments.” “They who sow to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal 6:8).T.C.
Jud 1:11
Three examples of similar ungodliness.
Another triplet, answering to the triplet of Sodom, the evil angels, the unbelieving Israelites. In both triplets there was an outrage against nature, a contempt for Divine sovereignty, a revolt against dignities.
I. A DENUNCIATION OF JUDGMENT. “Woe unto them!”
1. Wickedness has its end in woes. The end of it is “death.”
2. The most fearful woes are those which are spiritual in their nature. No outward calamity is so terrible as the wrath of God, no worldly misfortune so great as a seared conscience.
3. The woe does not come without warning. God foretells the ruin that it may be averted, as in the notable case of the Ninevites.
4. Ministers ought to exhibit the terrors of the Law as well as the sweet promises of the gospel.
II. THE GROUNDS OF THIS DENUNCIATION OF JUDGMENT. There is a threefold variety in godless transgression.
1. There is an outrage against the laws of nature. “For they went in the way of Cain.”
(1) That was a way of hypocrisy. Cain offered a sacrifice, but in a faithless spirit.
(2) It was a way of envy. “The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy.” In the case of Cain it was “the inlet to murder.” Who is able to stand before envy? It is its own punishment.
(3) It was a way of selfishness and hatred. Hatred led to the murder of Abel, and selfishness was stamped upon the interrogative answer to God’s question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
(4) It was a way of violence and cruelty. “He who cared not how he served God regarded not how he used his brother. Cain begins with sacrifice and ends with murder.” Those who plead for most liberty are apt to be most selfish and cruel.
2. There is a religious opposition to God from interested motives. “And ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire.”
(1) Their guideBalsam.
(a) He was a false prophet; he is called both a prophet (2Pe 2:16) and a soothsayer (Jos 13:22).
(b) The devil uses the ablest instruments to serve his ends.
(c) God often endows wicked persons with high gifts. Great, accordingly, is their responsibility.
(2) The error of Balsam.
(a) This does not refer to his being deceived in the expectation of reward for his wicked work.
(b) It refers rather to his deviation from God’s will and commandment in the whole history of his relations with Balak. “His way was perverse before the Lord.” He made the Israelites to err from the way of righteousness by teaching Balak to cast a stumbling-block before themto eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication (Rev 2:14).
(c) It was a deviation in doctrine that led to a deviation from holiness. Thus false teachers are usually evil-workers (Php 3:2). Their “minds are defiled, they are reprobate to every good work.” “Truth reforms as well as informs.”
(3) The motive of Balaam’s conduct. “For hire.”
(a) There was profanity in such conduct. Covetousness is idolatry; but it is something like blasphemy in a religious guide. The guide to heaven ought to be above the base love of lucre.
(b) There was hypocrisy in such conduct. There was an apparent concern for God’s honour and the good of man; but under all was the eager lust for reward.
(4) The impetuous and eager pace of seducers. “They ran riotously.”
(a) They are not checked by God’s judgments.
(b) The desire for gain hurries men forward to many an act of wickedness and sin. He that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent” (Pro 28:20).
(c) Sinners pursuing a downward course know not where they may stop.
(d) There is a Divine hand to punish the greatest sinners.
(e) How sad that the saints of God should not run as eagerly in the way of God as sinners in the way of wickedness and folly! They ought, surely, to “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God.”
3. There is a contempt for sacred ordinances which brings its own retribution. “And perished in the gainsaying of Korah.”
(1) The history of Korah. He was a Levite of the tribe of Levi, and cousin-german of Moses. He was, therefore, employed in an honourable department of the ecclesiastical service” to wait upon the sons of Aaron in the service of the house of the Lord.”
(2) His insurrection. “The gainsaying of Korah.” He opposed the exclusive privileges of Moses and Aaron, saying that they “took too much upon them,” and he claimed the privileges of the priesthood for himself and others. “And seek ye the priesthood also?” says Moses. The conduct of Korah finds its counterpart in the seducers of Jude’s day, who despised ecclesiastical ordinances, and set at naught the order of the Church. Their conduct showed
(a) contempt for Divine order and appointment;
(b) discontent with their existing privileges;
(c) envy at the rulers of the Church;
(d) ingratitude to God for his privileges.
(3) His punishment. “Perished in the gainsaying of Korah.” The facts of Korah’s destruction are familiar to all. They suggest:
(a) That seducers ordinarily involve others in their own destruction. So it was with Korah. Two hundred and fifty”famous in the congregation, and men of renown”were drawn into the conspiracy. “He would neither be alone in woe nor in wickedness.”
(b) God opposes those who oppose his ordinances. “An evil man seeketh only rebellion, therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him” (Pro 24:22).
(c) We are bound to accept thankfully the privileges which God has provided for us.T.C.
Jud 1:12, Jud 1:13
A vivid picture of the moral corruption of the ungodly seducers.
I. THEIR SELFISH AND SINFUL PERVERSION OF THE CHURCH‘S FELLOWSHIP. “These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves.”
1. They, like sunken rocks, wrecked those who unsuspectingly approached them.
(1) Their profession of religion was so belied by their immoral ways, that men, taking them to be Christians, abhorred the true gospel and turned away from it to their destruction.
(2) Their evil example led others into unchristian courses to their eternal ruin.
2. They mingled, without fear or misgiving, in the loving fellowships of the Church.
(1) The love-feasts were connected with the Lord’s Supper, which is itself, indeed, a love-feast. They were designed to maintain brotherly love, and especially to refresh the poor saints. They always began and ended with prayer. They were no places for self-indulgence or gluttony.
(2) These godless persons attended the love-feasts, with no fear of the Divine displeasure, with no reverence for the holy society into which they intruded themselves.
(a) It is not possible in this world entirely to separate the godly from the ungodly. It is impossible for ministers to read the hearts of men so surely as to keep a sharp line of distinction between believers and unbelievers. Yet the discipline of the Church ought to enforce a conformity to the terms of their profession.
(b) These seducers were unfit guests at a feast designed to commemorate the unity of the body of Christ and the brotherhood of all believers. “Who shall abide in thy tabernacle?”
3. They feasted themselves luxuriously, regardless of the poor. Their conduct reminds one of the shepherds of Israel. “Woe be to the shepherds of Israel, that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flock?” (Eze 34:2).
(1) They feasted immoderately. “Their hearts were oppressed with surfeiting.” Like the Israelites in their idolatry, “they sat down to eat and to drink” (Exo 32:6).
(2) They wronged the poor, whom they suffered to fast while they were feasting.
II. THEIR EMPTINESS AND INSTABILITY. “Clouds without water, carried along by winds.”
1. Instead of being like clouds dropping refreshing rain upon the earth, they, as rainless clouds, while promising much, were profitless and disappointing to the hopes of the Church. They could not give what they had not, but they professed to have something to give. Their deluded followers “spent their money for that which was not bread, and their labour for that which satisfied not.” When people are athirst for God” the heart punting for the water-brooks”it is hard to find no water at hand to satisfy the soul. Yet the Lord says, “Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.” It is a great sin to profess a goodness to which we are utterly opposed, because
(1) it profanes God’s Name;
(2) it grieves the hearts of true saints;
(3) it hardens the wicked;
(4) it is utterly unprofitable to the empty professors themselves.
2. They were as unstable as clouds whirled every way by the wind.
(1) They were unstable in doctrine, carried about by every intellectual caprice, like those who halt between two opinions, and are not settled in the truths of religion. They were not “grounded and settled” because they were off the true Foundation (Jud 1:20).
(2) They were unstable in their affections, now fervent, now cold, “framing to themselves such a moderation as will just serve the scantling of the times.”
(3) They were unstable in their practical conduct. At one time they were ascetic in their ideas; then self-indulgent, loose, evil. With all their changes they begin in the flesh and end in the flesh.
(4) Christians ought to be warned against unsteadfastness. They ought to continue in the things which they have learned (2Ti 3:14), and not to be “tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14).
III. THEIR UTTER UNFRUITFULNESS. “Autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.” Saints arc fruit-bearing trees of righteousness (Isa 61:3). Where is an evident climax in this picture of the godless seducers. First, they are like autumn trees, which ought to be full of fruit, yet they are without fruit, like the barren fig tree; then they are utterly deaddead in appearance and dead in reality; then they are like uprooted trees concerning which there can be no more hope of fruit. There is a logical as well as rhetorical fitness in the picture.
1. There was no fruit because there was no life in the tree. These godless persons were spiritually dead (Eph 2:2).
2. This death implies ignorance, darkness, alienation from God.
3. The torn-up roots imply not only that there is no hope of growth, but that the world sees the secret rottenness that was at the root of such trees. They will never again be taken for fruit-bearers. “From them who had not, even that which they seemed to have is taken away” (Luk 8:18).
4. The picture before us is a solemn warning to believers.
(1) It is their duty to be spiritually fruitful (Php 1:11; Joh 15:2; Col 1:10).
(2) They must bring forth fruit at every season, even in old age (Ps92:12).
(3) Believers, therefore, ought to plant themselves by the rivers of water (Psa 1:3).
(4) They ought to guard against apostasy. “Be not high-minded, but fear.”
(5) They ought, therefore, to pray for the dews of God’s blessing. He alone can give the increase.
IV. THEIR SHAMELESS AND TURBULENT TEMPER. “Wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame.”
1. There was a restless agitation in their life. They were “like the troubled sea, whose waters cast up mire and dirt” (Isa 57:20). “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” Their consciences were unquiet; they were fretful and arrogant; they troubled the peace of those Churches into which they crept, by their hard speeches, their obscene talking, their blasphemous suggestions.
2. As the wild waves lash themselves into foam, these seducers throw forth upon the world all the shamefulness that was buried in their wicked hearts. “Boldly belching out their abominable opinions and their detestable doctrines;” but, above all, giving a free outlet to all licentiousness. Evil things come forth from “the evil treasure of the heart.”
3. It is the lot of the Church to live in the midst of these “raging waves” of wickedness and folly.
4. The Church is most districted by enemies within her communion.
5. The enemies of God proclaim their own shame, and bring confusion upon themselves.
6. The saints ought ever to pray that the peace of God may dwell in their hearts.
V. MISLEADING GUIDES AND THEIR FUTURE DESTINY. “Wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever.”
1. These seducers were like stars, conspicuous by their position and their exploits. They were false lights to mislead the people into error and destruction.
2. They were wandering stars,
(1) because they kept no certain course;
(2) because they blazed brightly for a moment, then went out in darkness.
3. They threw down no light upon the world lying in darkness and the region of death.
4. It is a fearful thing to seduce others from the way of truth. “They which lead thee cause thee to err” (Isa 3:12).
5. God shows great forbearance even to seducers. He “endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom 9:22).
6. Divine judgments are often in kind. The seducers who loved darkness rather than light will be plunged into still deeper darkness”into the very blackness of darkness for ever.”
7. Let believers be warned to seek the lightto walk in the light, to walk decently as in the day.T.C.
Jud 1:14, Jud 1:15
An ancient prophecy of judgment against the wicked.
I. THE PROPHET. “And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied.”
1. He was a preeminently holy man, who was translated to heaven without dying.
2. His descent is here mentioned,
(1) partly to indicate the antiquity of his prophecy, as going back to the first days of man on earth;
(2) partly to distinguish him from Enoch the son of Cain;
(3) partly also to show the zeal of Enoch against wickedness in those early times. He was the seventh from Adam, reckoning by generations.
II. HIS PROPHECY. It is the coming of Christ to judgment. “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones.” We have here the historic tense of prophecy.
1. The Lord comes from heaven. “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven” to judge the world.
2. It will be in the end of the world, in a day utterly unknown to man or angel.
3. He will be accompanied by ten thousands of his saints, who will sit with him as assessors (1Co 6:3). “The saints shall appear with him in glory.” They are called his saints, because they are so by redemption and by service.
4. This second advent is to execute judgment and convict the ungodly.
(1) The last judgment is to be regarded as a matter of the greatest certainty.
(2) It is foolish to expect an escape from judgment through secrecy.
(3) Words will be judged as well as deeds. “All the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Sinners reproach, mock, and condemn the just. The piety of the just does not exempt them from severe aspersions. Christ regards the words spoken against his disciples as spoken against himself.
(4) The judgment will take account of the manner or motive of transgression. “Works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought.”
(a) The wicked devise mischief (Pro 6:14).
(b) They delight and take pleasure in it (Pro 10:30).
(c) They persist in transgression in the teeth of all warnings.
(d) Their sin does not spring from mere infirmity like the sin of the righteous.
(5) The true interest as well as the highest wisdom of the sinner is to make a friend of the Lord against the day of judgment.T.C.
Jud 1:16
The cynical and dissatisfied temper of these self-indulgent flatteries.
I. THEY WERE LOUD IN THE EXPRESSION OF THEIR DISCONTENT, “These are murmurers, complainers.” It was natural they should be so if they “walked after their own lusts,” because these lusts were insatiable, and the means of their gratification were not always accessible.
1. The habit of murmuring argues unbelief and distrust in the Lord. When men can say, “The Lord is my Portion,” they will be likely to add, “The lines are fallen to me in pleasant places.” (Psa 16:5, Psa 16:6). No fullness of earthly blessing can still the complaints of an unbelieving heart. The lesson of contentment is not to be learnt in the school of great prosperity.
2. It argues unthankfulness. The humble believer, as he receives his blessings, says, “I am less than the least of thy mercies.”
3. It argues a high estimate of the murmurer’s worth. “He counts God a hard master and himself a good servant.” He seems to say, too, that if he had the ordering of human destiny, he could dispose it to better account.
4. The lesson for murmurers is that their habit
(1) cannot relieve or benefit them,
(2) but rather fills their life with still deeper anxiety and unrest.
5. The lesson for believers is
(1) to cultivate a contented mind (1Ti 6:8);
(2) to seek for submissiveness of heart;
(3) to be thankful that their lot is better than that of many others in the world.
II. THEY WERE SINFULLY SELF–INDULGENT. “Walking after their lusts.”
1. The lusts of men are from within. “Out of the heart proceed” all evil things (Mat 15:18). “The wars and the fightings” of life come of the lusts of men (Jas 4:1).
2. They are
(1) deceitful (Eph 4:22);
(2) entangling (2Ti 3:6);
(3) defiling;
(4) disquieting (2Pe 2:11).
3. The course of the wicked is usually very persistent.
4. The servitude of the sinner to lust is miserable in its end. “The wages of sin is death.”
III. THEY WERE GIVEN TO VAIN AND BOASTFUL EXAGGERATION. “And their month speaketh great swelling words.” Either of themselves or others. The beast in the Apocalypse had a “mouth speaking great things” (Rev 13:5).
1. None are so ready to boast of themselves as those possessing the least merit.
2. It is a folly to boast of ourselves. The Apostle Paul “became a fool in glorying” (2Co 12:11). “Let another man’s lips praise thee, and not thine own.” Our worth should commend us, not our words.
3. We should not allow swelling words to seduce us from the truth. There are those “who with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2Pe 2:3), who “by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rev 16:18).
IV. THEY WERE PARASITES AND FLATTERERS. “Showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.”
1. It is right to show respect to persons worthy of honour, but wrong to show respect to persons of evil character. It is wrong to “glory in men,” but above all to “think of men above what is meet,” and to be puffed up for one against another. We are not to have “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons” (Jas 2:1)”when wickedness in robes is magnified, and holiness in rags is contemned.” The Lord says, “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty” (Le 19:15).
2. It is peculiarly base to act in this matter with a view to our personal advantage.
(1) It is sinful and hypocritical to flatter the wicked because they are great or powerful.
(2) We must learn to know the true glory of man, which is “the hidden man of the heart.”T.C.
Jud 1:17, Jud 1:18
A quotation from recent prophecies.
Jude then refers to the warnings of apostles respecting these scoffing sensualists. “But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
I. CONFIRMATION OF HIS STATEMENTS BY THE AUTHORITY OF APOSTLES.
1. It is evident that Jude’s Epistle was written subsequent, perhaps long subsequent, to the Epistles of Peter and Paul, to which he refers. These sensual seducers had time to develop their corruptions and their audacity of position.
2. Jude recognizes the Divine authority and inspiration of these earlier writings of Scripture.
3. He throws back the saints upon the recollection of Scripture as their only authoritative guide. There is no evidence that he refers here to any oral traditions.
4. Jude believes in the fact of prophetic illumination.
5. It is the duty of ministers to warn their people against a approaching evils.
6. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
II. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPHETIC WARNING. “In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts.” Note here the predicted appearance of wicked mockers.
1. They arise in “the last time.” That is, in the period lying between the first and the second advents of Christ. They appear even under the purest dispensation of grace. The wicked are most wicked when grace is most abundant.
2. They are as wicked as they are scornful. Mockery is, indeed, a note of advanced corruption. Their mockeries are directed both against God and man. These mockers were probably those referred to by Peter as asking, “Where is the promise of his coming?’
(1) Mockery is essentially a profane act. It argues contempt of God’s being as well as his attributes.
(2) It argues unbelief. It implies that God’s threatenings are a fable.
(3) It is a barrier against the reception of good. “Rebuke a scorner, and he will hate thee”
(4) It is a from of persecution (Gal 4:29).
(5) Great is the Divine forbearance with mockers.
(6) God will punish the mockers. He “scorneth the scorners” (Pro 3:34); and will “mock at their calamities” in the day of their judgment.
III. THE CONDUCT OF BELIEVERS IN THE PRESENCE OF MOCKERS.
1. We must bear mockings with patience, like our Lord, who “endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb 12:2).
2. We must not render scoff for scoff, at the risk of hardening scoffers.
3. We must not allow scoffers to deter us from following the Lord fully.T.C.
Jud 1:19
Application of the prophecy to the seducers of Jude’s day.
Mark the threefold division of the verse.
I. THEY WERE SEPARATISTS. “These are they who make separations.” Perhaps as “spiritual” persons, who regard things of sense as so indifferent that they may be enjoyed without risk to the soul.
1. Church divisions are usually grounded on separations from the Church’s doctrine. Those who bring in “damnable heresies” “draw away disciples after them” (Act 20:30).
2. Separations may be justified by the Church’s departure from the truth. This is the justification of Protestantism in withdrawing from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century.
3. Separations, originated by scoffing sensualists,
(1) have their origin in unbelief and pride;
(2) engender hatred;
(3) and end in the destruction of immortal souls.
II. THEY WERE SENSUAL. “Sensual.”
1. Sensuality, or the idea of an enlarged liberty in sinful enjoyment, is often the motive of separations.
2. Corrupt affections blind the judgment and harden the conscience. Burns says that sensuality “hardens a’ within.” It turns Christianity into epicurism.
3. Sensuality destroys the soul eternally. “They who sow to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal 6:8). “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die,” (Rom 8:13).
III. THEY ARE WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT. “Having not the Spirit.”
1. Sanctity and sensuality cannot dwell together.
2. Those who want the Spirit are easily carried away into sensual sin. Therefore David prayed, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me” (Psa 51:11).
3. Saints ought to seek the Spirit of holiness, love, meekness, and truth. “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh” (Gal 5:16).T.C.
Jud 1:20, Jud 1:21
Exhortation to the saints to build up their own spiritual life as the grand security against apostasy.
I. WORKING UPON THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH IS THE ONLY MEANS OF OUR SPIRITUAL SELF–PRESERVATION. “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God.”
1. The foundation. “Your most holy faith.” This is faith objective, not subjective; the doctrine of faith rather than the grace of faith. It is true that Christ is our only Foundation, but he is so as revealed to faith, and he can only become so through faith. We build upon Christ by building upon his Word. We receive him as he is offered in the gospel.
(1) It is “your faith,” because it is “delivered to the saints” (Jud 1:4); because the saints were “delivered into it” (Rom 7:5); because it was for the salvation of their souls (1Pe 1:9).
(2) It is “your most holy faith,” because
(a) every word of God is pure;
(b) the covenant is holy;
(c) it works holiness in the heart and life (Joh 15:1-27.).
2. The building up upon this foundation.
(1) The saints are to build themselves up. This is addressed, not to sinners, but to saints who have been already placed upon the foundation. The counsel is the same as that of Php 2:12, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Jude writes to those who already possess the Spirit, through whom they already enjoy that inward and habitual grace which is to be used by believers according to their need and upon a sense of their deep responsibility. Yet believers are still in a true sense “God’s workmanship” (Eph 2:10); and it is “the Lord who builds the house” (Psa 127:1).
(2) The building implies a various and skilful use of the materials necessary to that end. Faith, love, hope, patience, watchfulness, knowledge, are to be the gold, silver, precious stones, built upon this broad foundation. We are to grow in grace, and grow up in Christ in all things, adding to faith all the virtues (2Pe 1:5-7) and all the graces of the Spirit (Gal 5:22, Gal 5:23).
II. TRUE PRAYER THE ONLY MEANS OF BUILDING OURSELVES UP. “Praying in the Holy Spirit.”
1. There is no prayer without the Spirit. (Rom 8:26.) The Spirit suggests the matter of prayer; without him “we know not what to pray for.” He instructs us to ask for things according to God’s will. The Spirit suggests the true manner of prayer.
(1) It must be “in sincerity and truth.”
(2) In fervour: “With groanings.”
(3) In faith: “Nothing wavering.”
(4) In holiness; for the Spirit of supplication is always a Spirit of grace.
(5) In love; for we are to lift holy hands without wrath, and the Spirit makes us at peace with ourselves.
2. Without prayer a man shows himself to be destitute of the Spirit.
3. What a resource have the saints in the building up of their spiritual life!
III. THE SELF–PRESERVING END TOWARD WHICH ALL THIS SPIRITUAL EFFORT IS DIRECTED. “Keep yourselves in the love of God.”
1. This is not our love to God, but God’s love to us, in which we dwell as in a region of safety”as in a watch-tower,” says Calvin; for it is parallel to the saying of our Lord, “Abide ye in my love” (Joh 15:9). “How great,” says Jenkyn, “how fall, a good is God!” In him is all fullness of grace, of joy, of safety, springing out of his infinite love. “He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1Jn 4:16).
2. Our preservation in the midst of heresy and impiety depends on our dwelling in God’s love.
3. We cannot keep ourselves in God’s love without having our own love deeply stirred. This breastplate of love will be a preservative against seduction (1Th 5:8).
4. We ought continually to pray that the love of God may be shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. (Rom 5:5.)
5. Saints ought ever to know and believe that love. (1Jn 4:16.)
IV. THE EXPECTATION THAT IS LINKED TO THIS GUARDIANSHIP WITHIN THE SPHERE OF GOD‘S LOVE. “Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.”
1. The object of this expectation.
(1) It is Christ’s mercy, because:
(a) He procured it by his merit.
(b) He applied it to us by his Spirit.
(c) He holds out its crowning blessings in the future day of judgment: “Come, ye blessed of my Father.” There is “a crown of righteousness in that day.” He is “to present us faultless before the presence of glory” (Jud 1:24).
(d) There is no mercy apart from Christ.
2. The expectation itself. This implies
(1) a confident belief in the reality of this mercy;
(2) warm desire for it;
(3) patient waiting for it (Heb 6:12);
(4) a joyful foretaste of it (Rom 5:2; 1Pe 1:8);
(5) the love of his ” appearance ” (2Ti 4:8).
3. The final issue of the expected mercy. “Eternal life.” This is the true life of man. In its final glory it implies the function of God’s presence. Augustine says, “Heaven is a low thing without God.” Our happiness finds its end in everlasting communion with God.
4. The effects which this expectation ought to exercise upon us. It ought
(1) to preserve us against error and sin;
(2) to quicken our zeal;
(3) to make us faithful in the discharge of all duty;
(4) to make us patient in the endurance of trial.T.C.
Jud 1:22, Jud 1:23
Exhortation to faithful, but discriminating, dealing with three classes of transgressors.
I. THE LEAST HOPELESS CLASSTHE UNSTABLE AND DISPUTATIOUS. “And on some have mercy, who contend with you.” We are to be compassionate towards errorists of this class.
1. Compassion becomes a Christian; for he ought to have the very bowels of Christ himself.
2. It is not to be denied to errorists of a certain class. They are entangled with doubts. Their very disputations imply that they are restless in mind. We are to restore the fallen in a spirit of meekness. “We live not among the perfect, but such as are subject to many slips.” We have frequent need ourselves of God’s pity and help.
3. Wisdom is needed in dealing with the fallen. Some will be won by love who will be repelled by severity. The persons in this first class may have fallen through infirmity, ignorance, or blinded zeal.
II. ANOTHER CLASS TO BE TREATED WITH A HOLY SEVERITY, “And some save, snatching them out of the fire.”
1. This class is obdurate, presumptuous, and without shame. They have not known the bitterness of sin, and they are in great hazard.
2. The saints can, in a sense, save transgressors. “How knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” (1Co 7:16); “Thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1Ti 4:16; see also Jas 5:20). Believers can rebuke sinners, plead with them, pray for them, and win them back to the gospel.
3. A holy severity is often needed in dealing with transgressors. “Knowing the terrors of the Lord, we persuade men” (2Co 5:10). Sinners must be plucked violently from the fire. Our severity ought to have a saving motive: “Severity to sin being mercy to the soul;” “and a godly heart,” as Jenkyn says, “would not have one threat the less in the Bible.”
4. The wicked are fearless in sin, and regardless of its dread consequences. Yet
(1) those who are in the fire may be plucked out.
(2) The merriment of a sinner is madness. The fire of judgment is burning under his feet, and he knows it not.
III. THE MOST HOPELESS AND CORRUPT CLASS. Those to be saved by appeals to their fear. “And on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.”
1. Such sinners need to be confronted with the terrors of the Law. A holy rigour is needful for corrupt and proud transgressors. None but fools hate reproof.
2. The saints ought, in dealing with them, to watch lest they should receive contamination.
(1) Sinners are very defiling in all the accessories of their life.
(2) Even the saints run risks of defilement.
(3) They must seek to avoid even the appearance of evil. They should pray to be “kept from the evil.” They must seek to purge themselves from the vessels of dishonour (2Ti 2:21).T.C.
Jud 1:24, Jud 1:25
The doxology.
I. THE PERSON TO WHOM PRAISE IS ASCRIBED. “Now unto him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy, to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
1. It is God our Saviour presented under a double aspect.
(1) As he who alone can keep us from stumbling or falling. The allusion is appropriate to an Epistle so full of warnings and denunciations and exhortations, and which began with an address to saints as those “preserved for Christ Jesus.” We stand by faith, and we can only stand strong “in the Lord, and in the power of his might.” “He that hath begun a good work in us will perform it till the day of Christ Jesus” (Php 1:6).
(2) As he who will present us in final glory.
(a) “Without blemish;” for the Church will then be “without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.”
(b) “In exceeding joy,” where there is fullness of joy; for he “who is self-sufficient, all-sufficient, must needs be soul-sufficient.”
2. The final glory comes through Jesus Christ. The salvation, in its beginning, progress, and end, is the Lord’s.
II. THE PRAISE ASCRIBED TO GOD. “Be glory, majesty, dominion, and power, before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.” These men who despised dominion, and spoke evil of dignities, are told that all dominion and glory belonged to God ages before they were born, as they do still in the ages of time, and will do for ever through eternity, Mark the threefold phrase for “eternity,” as if to carry the threefold idea of everything out to the very end.T.C.
HOMILIES BY J.S. BRIGHT
Jud 1:1-4
Christian cooperation desired in the defense of the gospel
The believers to whom Jude wrote were “called” by an external and spiritual power into the fellowship of the Church; had been “preserved” from the gross evils and corruptions which sprang up in those early days, and “sanctified by God the Father,” and made partakers of his holiness. As he claims their service in the preservation of the faith he implores “mercy” that they may be enabled to help, “peace” of mind amid the earnestness of their contention for the truth, and “love” that the thought of the Divine love to them might influence them to speak the “truth in love” to others.
I. THE SPIRITUAL ESTIMATE OF THE WORK OF SALVATION. Natural men pass it by with indifference; and, if they regard it, object to its claims, its doctrines, and its pursuits. Jude, James, and those who were “called,” knew that it was the highest and most precious gift of God. It was his Divine idea; “for of him are all things.” It was the result of a marvelous preparation, and was accomplished by the holy sacrifice of our Lord on “the accursed tree.” It is applied by the eternal Spirit, and secures forgiveness, imparts power to appropriate good from all agencies, objects, and conditions; and prepares for eternal glory. It saves from the waste of our life, our labour, own influence, and property; and makes the future one of gracious recompense and unfailing reward. Many things in the world engage the affections and tax the energies of mankind, among which are to be found the allurements of pleasure, the attractions of power, and the possession of gold; but these, when viewed in the clear and heavenly light of Divine instruction, appear as the light dust of the balance, and unworthy of our highest love and our most ardent pursuit. Whatever difference may be found in place of abode, and diversity of forms of worship, an exalted estimate of the gospel is the broad and universal mark of the Church of Christ. As believers understand the worth of the “faith once delivered to the saints,” they are required to watch over its purity, and by their steady profession of obedience to the Saviour, by the fervour of their prayers, and by their seasonable advocacy of the gospel, are to contend for its preservation from mutilation and injury.
II. THE UNIVERSAL ASPECT AND FINAL CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL JUSTIFY ENDEAVOUR TO PRESERVE IT UNIMPAIRED. This inspired writer was a Jew, and all the apostles of Christ were of the stock of Abraham, and had been trained up in a system of local sacrifice and national privilege. This state of things made many of their countrymen narrow and exclusive, and disposed to look upon other nations with the spirit of dislike and even of contempt. When our Lord came he foretold the extension of grace to the Gentiles, and said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” His followers received his Spirit, and found that, “where the Spirit of the Lord was there was liberty.” “The middle wall of partition was thrown down,” and now by one Spirit Jew and Gentile have “access to the Father.” It was the “common salvation,” and, with all its Divine blessings and extraordinary privileges, offered to men of every clime and tongue, that they might be fellow-heirs with believers who, according to the flesh, descended from Abraham, the father of the faithful It was a system of grace which was the last and abiding revelation of the will of God for the salvation of mankind. There had been vast and long-continued processes of gradual discovery to patriarchs, prophets, and psalmists; foreshadowings in the ceremonial law, and typical service of the temple; continuous and far-reaching movements of providence; and all these were designed to prepare the way of the Lord, and herald his approach, who is “the End of the Law for righteousness.” Previous institutions were to give way and be shaken, that those things which “cannot be shaken may remain.” The kingdom of Christ cannot be moved; and the truths which concern it are given once for all. None can add to them or take from them without being guilty of presumption and unfaithfulness. They are committed to the saints, who are bound by loyalty to Christ their King; and by a desire to promote the good of others to guard the sacred and invaluable deposit.
II. THE GRAVE AND URGENT REASONS FOR SPIRITUAL VIGILANCE AND COURAGE, Jude does not allude to any persecution outside the Church which demanded steadfastness and decision; but he points to those adversaries who with policy and cunning climbed up some other way, and were dangerous because their corruption of Christian doctrine and of personal conduct proved them to be enemies of the cross of Christ. They proved the truth of Cowper’s lines
“Errors in life breed errors in the brain,
And these reciprocally those again.”
These men entered into the Church, as the serpent into Paradise, to tempt and seduce believers from the truth. They were the apostles of Satan, and turned the glorious grace of the gospel, which was given to deliver from sin, into indulgence in sensual pleasure, and thereby turned the clemency of God into a motive to further and more frequent rebellion against him. It was a heavy charge against Israel that “she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal” (Hos 2:8). If Jehovah was righteously angry at such perversion of temporal gifts, how much more must he be offended by the profanation of his gospel to purposes of selfish indulgence! By the ministry of Jude he calls them to share in his righteous displeasure against sin. To add to their transgressions and misbelief, these offenders denied the right of Jesus Christ to control and shape their life and conduct. He died that, “whether we live, we are to bye to the Lord; or whether we die, we are to die to the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” These views were not innocent as differences about meats; but they affected the very spirit and object of the gospel; and, therefore, required of believers their most zealous concern for those things which were the means of their salvation and the basis of their hopes of eternal life. Characters of the description here introduced were already condemned by the voice of God; and whatever their smooth and deceitful policy, whatever reluctance to censure these Christians might feel, they were, since such solemn interests were in jeopardy, to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.”J.S.B.
Jud 1:5-16
Here are reasons for resisting evil men drawn from examples of the Divine anger against others.
As a scribe well-instructed, Jude brings from the treasures of Old Testament truth suitable illustrations to inspire believers with becoming earnestness in the work of defending the purity of the Church, and the completeness of Christian doctrine. They are reminded that no special relation to Jehovahlike that which subsisted between Israel and their Redeemer from the slavery of Egyptwill avail to protect men from the penalties of disobedience; and therefore many who had been delivered by miracle and by the mighty power of God were overthrown in the wilderness. There is a higher illustration adduced, which affirms that no dignity of nature such as the angels possessed, and no past perfection of adoration and service, will screen offenders from merited punishment. The “first estate” of the angels was one of splendourample knowledge drawn from the unclouded revelation of God, and blessedness of emotion; but the awful righteousness of the eternal throne cast them into outer darkness, and reserves them for future condemnation and shame. The last example is drawn from the wide and hateful corruption of those who dwelt in one of the fairest and most fruitful regions of ancient Canaan. The spot, which was well watered and like the garden of the Lord, was defiled by man, whose sin drew down the flames of the Divine anger, which turned the region into desolation and made it permanent witness for the hatred of God against iniquity. Such demonstrations of the mind of Jehovah respecting sinners and their punishment should create in believers definite impressions of the evil of disobedience, and a determination, by Christian methods, to denounce it wherever they find it active, and endeavour to check and restrain its spread and influence.
I. IT INVITES US TO CONSIDER THE SHAMEFUL MISUSE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SPEECH. These men who crept into the Church appear to have revealed the corruption of their nature during the hours of sleepsince they were the same wicked offenders as when they were full of activity during the day, and their nature, like the “troubled sea, cast forth mire and dirt.” With this sad feature of their life there was connected the spirit of contempt for magistracy and the powers that were “ordained of God.” To condemn this spirit of scorn and derision a fact is introduced which shows the spirit of reverence which obtains in heaven. Michael the archangel, one of the most lofty and noble among the “principalities and powers,” is brought to oppose and turn aside the accusations of Satan, who is a fallen and lying spirit, and is eager, agreeably to the vision of Zechariah (Zec 3:2) to urge the destruction of Israel, whose plight is represented by the high priest clothed in filthy garments. The Jews restored from captivity are like a half-consumed brand or branch; and Satan, as a murderer, desires the annihilation of the tribes of Israel. He is rebuked with calm dignity, when Michael might have overpowered him with terrific and well-deserved upbraidings. The evil users of their speech and knowledge are condemned because they presumptuously venture to speak scornfully of Divine things, which, as “natural men,” they cannot understand; and whereas the light and instincts of nature should guide to certain lines of conduct, even there they grossly abuse and pervert their faculties and powers to dishonourable indulgence. These facts show the deplorable activity of sin, and should awaken the prayer for that preservation from the evil of the world, which is impressively suggested in the intercessory petitions offered by our Lord just before his sufferings and death.
II. THE FEARFUL PORTRAIT WHICH JUDE PRESENTS OF THESE TRANSGRESSORS AND THEIR FINAL CONDEMNATION BY THE LORD JESUS AT HIS APPEARING. They are described as murmurers and complainers against the methods of providencethe rulers of countries and the claims of the gospel. They have men’s persons in admiration; as Tertulius complimented Felix, who was a cruel governor, to prejudice his mind against Paul (Act 24:2, Act 24:3), by means of “great swelling words.” These offenders followed Cain in his unacceptable worship, in which there was no sacrifice of a victim, no contrition of spirit, and no prayer for mercy. They imitated the temper of Balaam, who for gain would have injured the tribes of Israel; and in the way of ambition rose up, as Korah and his company, against the solemn appointments of the Aaronic family to serve at the altar. In the agape, or love-feast, they act as rocks at sea, upon which the ship is driven and wrecked. They are shepherds who feed themselves without restraint; clouds that promise rain, and yet distil no moisture on the thirsty soil; trees which bear no fruit; and wandering stars which guide no traveler; and hasten to deserved and eternal darkness. The ancient ‘Book of Enoch’ foretells their certain and inevitable doom. The Son of Godwho in his own character, and in the treatment of his people, who are members of his mystical body, has endured reproach, accusation, and calumnywill come to be glorified in his saints, and take vengeance upon them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel, of which he is the Center and the Glory. In view of the vast corruption of these men, and the fearful prospects which await them, the allusion to believers being “preserved in Christ Jesus” acquires a power and depth of meaning which could scarcely fail to awaken the ardours of gratitude to him who had kept them in times of fiery temptation.J.S.B.
Jud 1:17-21
Believers urged to remember the prophecies of the apostles, and to note their fulfillment.
Jude acknowledges the truth that the apostles spake under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as really as Isaiah and Jeremiah; and their predictions of the working of Satan and his servants were delivered partly by word of mouth, and partly by writings addressed to the Churches, and to evangelists like Timothy. Paul affirms that there would be many whose characters resembled those described in this Epistle (see 2Ti 3:1-6). These offenders would “mock” sacred things and sacred persons; and in the spirit of scorn would exclude themselves from saving knowledge, and repeat the experience of Herod, before whom the Son of God would work no miracle and utter no word; no, not even of reproof. The life of these men would be impure, their spirit factious and schismatic; and they would prove that they were in their natural statefor “that which is born of the flesh is flesh”and were therefore deprived of the life-giving and purifying presence of the Divine Spirit. These believers were to observe the inspired predictions of the apostles; and then mark how the prophecy corresponded with the facts. If they remembered these things they would find their memory a means of grace, and, instead of being shaken in mind, they might from these sad examples draw reasons for firmer faith and more steady profession of the gospel.
Here we have SPECIAL DUTIES AND PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFICES AND GRACE OF THE HOLY TRINITY. They are first encouraged to pursue the work of building up their spiritual life and character, which assumes that a foundation has been laid by faith in Christ; and that the fabric is to be carried up, by the addition of similar materials, to visibility and permanence. To realize this blessing there must be prayer in association with the help of the Divine Spirit, who will unfold the work of new covenant blessings, and prompt the suppliant to seek the “fruits of the Spirit” in all their variety and inexpressible value. Christians are then exhorted to keep themselves in the circle of the Father’s love, that they may realize all the benefits of adoption, and maintain a becoming confidence in the aim of all his discipline which is to prepare them for eternal life. However diversified his methods may be, his purpose is unchangeable and gracious; obedience to his will is the way to rest in his love, and to be in the way of his gracious manifestations to his children. All these counsels are concluded by an exhortation to look for eternal life through Christ. His mercy begins this spiritual lifeand the same mercy is seen in patience with our slownessthe revival and strengthening of spiritual convictions, and supplies of Divine grace. The Lord Jesus often directed the minds of his disciples to the future life, in which would be found the consummation of his purposes in the peace, security, joy, and perfection of his followers. The completeness of these counsels is worth our observation. The greatness of the work of edification leads to prayer in the Spirit. Prayer in the Spirit will conduce to growing impressions of the Father’s love; and all will tend to promote anticipation and desire of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.J.S.B.
Jud 1:22, Jud 1:23
Believers who enjoy the blessing of mercy from Christ, are required to show mercy to others.
It is probable that there were many in the circle of the Church whose spiritual condition required judicious and compassionate treatment; and all who were strong in faith were here, as in many other parts of the New Testament, counseled to help and restore others to peace and spiritual strength. There must be merciful consideration of such as are perplexed with doubts and anxieties; for, according to the original, the phrase, “making a difference,” seems to refer to such as were troubled by a scrupulous conscience. To such Paul refers when be writes, “But him that is weak in the faith receive ye, yet not to doubtful disputations.” Others are to be snatched like a half-burnt brand from the fire, lest they be entirely lost by being “swallowed up with overmuch grief;” or some earnest cautions were to be given to those who stood in great moral peril; or by agonizing prayer a soul might be saved from spiritual death. Spiritual caution was necessary in some special cases, since mercy was to be exercised with “fear” lest the taint of fleshly evil should defile those who treated them for the purposes of penitence and restoration. The garment which must be touched must be hated, while the sinner was pitied and forgiven. These thoughts remind us of the responsibility of the Christian’s state, and the obligation which lies upon him to diffuse blessings around him. He will not be inattentive to the claims of others, and will not walk in the way of Cain, who said, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” If the scrupulous, the erring, and those who are in moral danger, are neglected by the followers of Christ, how can they be warned, restored, and strengthened?J.S.B.
Jud 1:24, Jud 1:25
The sublime character of Christian prayer
it is permitted us to pray for temporal supplies and all things which are necessary for the life of the body; but the general current of petitions recorded in the New Testament has regard to the worth of spiritual advantages, and the enduring blessedness of the life to come. Jude teaches us to pray for ourselves and for others, that when our Lord shall appear the second time there may be acceptance and welcome. It is an immense privilege to be kept “from falling” or stumbling, from the prevalence of doubts, trust in ceremonies, and from being surprised by grievous sins. This precious safety must flow from him who has power over the external conditions of our life, and over the inward processes of thought and meditation, and can strengthen us by his Spirit “in the inner man.” The desire expressed by Jude includes the continuance and completeness of the process of sanctification; the attainment, through the mighty power of Christ, of a glorified body on the day of the resurrection; and entrance into the inheritance of the saints in light. Notice
I. THE WISDOM OF SOLICITING THE COOPERATION OF DIVINE POWER TO ESTABLISH AND PRESERVE CHRISTIAN WORK. It is instructive to observe the pains and care with which inspired apostles marshaled their arguments when they wrote to the Churches. It is impossible not to admire the fervour and urgency with which they exhort believers to avoid inconstancy, worldliness, and evil associations; and at the same time, they wisely introduce promises, encouragements, and cheering prospects to prompt them to make their “calling and election sure.” They then supplicate grace to give effect to their work, and to fulfill the desire of their hearts. The seed which is sown needs the rain and sunshine of heaven to make it prosper, that he who has sown in tears may come back “with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.” This truth is illustrated by a very cheering passage which describes the happy experience of Paul and Apollos, in which we find the zeal and power of the apostle of the Gentiles, and the learning and eloquence of Apollos, applied to the work of the ministry, and the happy success with which the Divine blessing crowned their labours; for said Paul, “I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1Co 3:6).
II. THE HAPPINESS OF CONCLUDING OUR WORK WITH GRATITUDE TO THE SOURCE OF ALL GOOD. Jude reached the close of the Epistle with the conviction that the Divine love seen in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should awaken feelings of fervent thanksgiving. The Father is the Fountain of salvation; the Son, the Medium of grace to us, and the Way of our approach to God; the Holy Spirit enables us to realize and enjoy the blessings of the covenant of grace. It is right to ascribe to God the “glory,” which is the manifestation of his excellence in the past, the present, and wondrous future; “majesty,” which consists in royal state; “dominion,” which is supreme over all things and beings; “power,” whereby he can realize the counsels of his own will, and his right to our eternal adoration and service. Such is the close of the Epistle, and such should be the close of our life-work. In this way David ended his career, and said, “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as Head above all. Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious Name” (1Ch 29:11-13). Amen.J.S.B.
HOMILIES BY R. FINLAYSON
Jud 1:1-25
The Letter.
I. INTRODUCTION.
1. Address.
(1) Writer. “Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.” The first designation of Jude points to his being a minister of the gospel. The second designation points to him as not so well known as his brother James. He does not take the designation of “apostle;” and this is in favour of his being brother of the James who was so well known as head of the Church in Jerusalem, and therefore also brother of the Lord. Obtrusiveness cannot be charged against Jude. He professes to write as the Lord’s servant, not as the Lord’s brother; and when he does bring in natural relationship it is not to the Lord, but to James.
(2) Readers. “To them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.” There is no indication given of locality. The first designation (to follow the order in the original) points to the overflowing of love on them as belonging to the family of God. The second designation points to watch being kept over them for Jesus Christ who is to have satisfaction in their destiny. The third designation, following on the other two, points to their having been effectually brought within the family circle of God and its privileges.
2. Salutation. “Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied.” The first word of salutation points to their being regarded under troublous conditions. The second word of salutation points to their enjoyment of the Divine protection. The third word of salutation points to their being (generally) delighted in by God. This Divine blessing is already realized: let it be realized a hundredfold.
II. THE LETTER.
1. Purpose.
(1) His original purpose. “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation.” Jude was busily engaged in the collection of materials for a treatise, which, if we may judge from this fragment, would have been masterly. It did not seem good to the Spirit to give more than the title of the contemplated treatise, which is very suggestive, viz. “Our common salvation.” It is a salvation which was wrought out for men simply as sinners. Respect was had to the universal fact of sin. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” When men had common implication in sin, and could do nothing for themselves, God in Christ wrought out for them a common salvation. It is a salvation which is enjoyed simply on the condition of faith. There is not the test of social condition, nor the test of race, but the test of that disposition which is called faith. All who humble themselves as sinners, and accept of what has been wrought out for them by Christ, are saved.
(2) His purpose as changed. “I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” His purpose was changed by a necessity arising before its full accomplishment, on which light is thrown in the next verse; but it was not entirely changed. His changed purpose related to the faith, i.e., contents of the faith, which were essentially thesethat for human salvation the Son of God became incarnate, that in human nature he endured the full desert of sin, that in enduring the full desert of sin he emitted a protest against sin as what was not to be permitted with impunity under the government of God. This faith was delivered unto the saints, i.e., Christians (one and all of them), of whom, in accordance with the faith, holiness is expected. It was delivered once for all, i.e., so as to admit of elucidation, but not of addition (by deliverances from age to age). The faith is the same for Christians of all generations. Jude’s purpose with reference to the common faith, which otherwise might have been distinctively expository, became distinctively hortatory. The common faith carried with it a common obligation, viz. to fight in its defense. In penning this Epistle, Jude was an earnest combatant. But the obligation was not confined to him. He wished his readers also to feel the obligation of defending as they could the faithpreserving from all attenuation or disparagement the entrance of the Son of God into our nature, his satisfaction for sin, his emphatic protest against the indifference of sin.
2. Occasion. “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude’s alarm was occasioned by the presence of intruders in the Christian fold. These crept in privilyliterally, “entered in aside from,” i.e., did not enter in by the door. They are described indefinitely as certain men, being not definitely, or all of them, false teachers. They fell back on false ideas, but more in the way of justifying their immoral conduct. Jude puts to the front their condemnation, which he is to announce, and also (as he is to show) their being of old set forth unto this condemnation as being men of a certain character which is described. They were ungodly men, i.e., they wanted especially reverence toward God (want of right feeling toward God being founded on an unworthy conception of God). To the adopted into the family of God the grace of our God is most sacred; but these treated it irreverently, turning freedom from the condemning power of the Law into freedom from the regulative power of the Law. Especially was their antinomianism associated with lasciviousness. The adopted into the family of God acknowledge Jesus Christ as their only Master and Lord, i.e., as having alone power to sway and direct them; these are antichristian, in refusing to acknowledge Jesus Christ as having the sole swaying and directing of them.
III. THREE EXAMPLES OF JUDGMENT.
1. The people redeemed from Egyptian bondage. “Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things once for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” They had got once for all in the knowledge of Christ the key to the interpretation of all things; he might therefore have left them to find out examples for themselves. He would only put them in mind of a few. He takes his first example from the generation of Israel that came out of Egypt. The Lord stood forth a first time, and it was to save a people. He stood forth a second time (this is the literal rendering of the word which is translated “afterward”), and it was not to save, but to destroy. It might have been expected that the generation who had seen the great works of the Lord in Egypt, for whom the Red Sea was parted, would have believed; yet this was the generation that perished in the wilderness for their unbelief. If the Lord works deliverance for us, it is that we may believe; if we show a disregard of the Divine works, an insensibility to their importance, we can only expect that the Lord will stand forth some day when we may not be thinking of it, and this time not to deliver, but to destroy, so that we never reach the heavenly Canaan.
2. The angels that appreciated not their rule and their abode. “And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness until the judgment of the great day.” We are here given to understand that these angels had their own rule, i.e., under God, and their own habitation, i.e., a place in heaven. Their rule, though necessarily circumscribed in comparison with Divine rule, was important in ways that we cannot clearly define; their habitation was light and peace and joy. It might have been expected that they would have been content with what they possessed; but no; there was something else which appeared more desirable to them, and for it they kept not their own principality, but left their own habitation. And what an irony in the exchange they made! Instead of keeping power, they were kept in bonds. Instead of having an abode of light, they were kept under darkness. They are to be kept in everlasting bonds (” everlasting” having here a limited sense) until the judgment of the great day, when their false preference is to be adjudicated on. If we appreciate not the position of influence God means us to fill, and the light and happiness he would appoint for us on earth, but prefer something else, there are certainly bonds and darkness for us until the great assize.
3. Sodom and Gomorrah. “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” The inhabitants of these cities gave themselves over to fornication, and went after strange flesh, i.e., other than human. They did this in like manner with the angels, there being an unnaturalness in the sin of the angels, but not the same unnaturalness. Their abominations did not escape the notice of God; they suffered for them the punishment of fire. The fire is regarded as eternal, inasmuch as its consequences remain. The Dead Sea covers the sites of those cities. It is said in Jud 1:4, “They who were of old set forth unto this condemnation;” or it is said here “are set forth as an example.” We are intended to learn from the inhabitants of those old cities, or from the buried cities themselves. If we give ourselves up to forbidden pleasures, will not the judgment-day bring punishment as of eternal fire?
IV. Two CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTRUDERS. “Yet in like manner those also in their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at naught dominion, and rail at dignities.” Their first characteristic was defiling the flesh (corresponding to “lasciviousness” in Jud 1:4). They did this in like manner with the inhabitants of the cities of the plain, by whose fate they were not warned. Their second characteristic was setting at naught dominion and railing at dignities (corresponding to “denying our only Master and Lord” in Jud 1:4). They did this in like manner with the Israelites who believed not, and with the angels who valued not their rule and their habitation. Lordship over them (in Christ) they despised; dignities (belonging to the heavenly world) they railed at. They did this when they should have been warned by the judgments on Israel and on the angels. Both these characteristics were displayed by them in their dreamings, i.e., “in the arbitrary fancies of their own perverted sense, which rendered them deaf to the truths and warnings of the Divine Word.”
V. THEIR CONDUCT CONTRASTED WITH THAT OF MICHAEL.
1. Michael. “But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” “And the Lord buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor; but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.” There was a Jewish tradition that the grave of Moses was given to the special custody of Michael. There seems also to have been a tradition (which cannot be traced) of a dispute which Michael had about the body of Moses. That the dispute was matter of fact is here certified. It throws light both on the importance of Moses and on the spirit of Michael. Of so much importance was Moses to the Israelites that there was danger of their worshipping him after his death. His body was therefore put beyond their search, and placed under the care of Michael. The devil, assuming a claim to the body as death’s prey, sought to get it back for the enticement of the Israelites. Michael, contending with him in defense of his charge, was indignant at the attempt to thwart the Divine purpose; but he did not allow himself to be abusive in his condemnation. Having respect to his adversary’s original dignity, he simply said, “The Lord rebuke thee.” The same language was used when an attempt was made to stop the building of the temple. Satan is represented as at the right hand of Joshua, the high priest, in the act of resisting him. The Lord (as Joshua’s defender) said unto Satan, “The Lord rebuke thee.”
2. Contrast. “But these rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed.” In contrast with Michael, these had no proper knowledge of the heavenly dignities that they railed at (of the nature and position given by God); there was a brutish kind of knowledge in which they were well advanced to their destruction.
VI. DENUNCIATION OF THEM BASED ON AFFINITIES TO EVIL MEN. “Woe unto them! for they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.” Jude, at this stage, becomes so impassioned that he regards the woe he pronounces on these men as already carried out. When Cain would not listen to the Divine remonstrance, but went on his willful way, and was punished by being made a fugitive and a vagabond, they were made fugitives and vagabonds with him. When Salaam was told not to go and curse Israel, but was swayed into a precipitous course by Balak’s tempting offer, they were infatuated with him. When Korah set himself against the Divine appointment of Moses and Aaron, and was swallowed up alive, they perished with him.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THEM BY ASSOCIATION WITH CERTAIN NATURAL OBJECTS.
1. Rocks. “These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves.” In the same impassioned tone Jude seizes upon natural objects to describe them. First of all he calls them “hidden rocks” (which is the right translation). When he contemplates them as “hidden rocks is at the love-feasts. It was the fact of their being hidden in their true characters that led to their having a place at the love-feasts. It was also the fact of their being hidden that made them so dangerous there, as it is the rock that is just covered with water that is so dangerous to vessels. It is wrong and confusing to bring in “shepherds.” All that is conveyed is that, with the characters they had, they should have been afraid to present themselves at the love-feasts; but instead of that, they feasted themselves at their pleasure. It was their want of moderation that was dangerous by way of example to others.
2. Clouds. “Clouds without water, carried along by winds.” In seasons of drought clouds sometimes appear in the sky that hold out the promise of rain to those who have been long and anxiously looking for it; but they are only a deceptionthey have no rain in them to give out, and are carried past by the winds. So the men of whom Jude writes held out the promise of being a blessing especially to the Christian society, but they were only a deception, having no spiritual influences in them to give forth to any.
3. Trees. “Autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.” In autumn fruit is expected on trees, but we have here autumn trees without fruit, and incapable of bearing fruit in the future, for they are dead, and twice dead, not only dead with their roots in the ground, but dead with their roots plucked up. So the men of whom Jude writes were not only destitute of good works, but incapable of ever producing them, being “rooted out of the soil of grace.”
4. Waves. “Wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame.” “The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.” There are those who are not only sinners, but sinners without the restraints that many put upon themselves in sinning, i.e., wicked. They are restlessly active in sinning; and what they do in their restlessness is to bring up the moral filth that has collected in them. It is these that Jude pictures here.
5. Stars. “Wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever.” We are to think of comets, whose course strikes us as erratic, and that, after shining for a time, are lost in the darkness. So there are those who are really out of the course appointed for them, but call forth the admiration of man for a time; their erratic course, however brilliant, can only end in their passing into the blackness of darkness for ever. This is the startling image with which Jude reaches a climax.
VIII. PROPHECY OF ENOCH.
1. Enoch. “And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied.” This is a new association with Enoch. We think of the godly humility of his walk, and of his being one of two rewarded with a translation; but it is only here that Scripture ascribes to him the prophetic gift. We do not wonder at his singular sanctity being accompanied with inspiration. He is here called the seventh from Adam, to mark the ancient date of his prophecy. For Jude, having referred to “these” men as having been of old set forth to their condemnation, and having brought forward many ancient examples, is now able to bring forward a distinct prophecy having a bearing on them (though not on them exclusively) of the most ancient date. The remarkable thing is that the prophecy (substantially) is found in the apocryphal ‘Book of Enoch,’ with which Jude seems to have been acquainted. The likelihood is that it found its way into that book from tradition. Jude did not avoid tradition (with regard to Michael as well as with regard to Enoch), rather took to tradition as that which was familiar to his readers, and what he did with it as an inspired man was to give it a pure, authentic form. We are thus indebted to him for the transmission of two important traditions, without the uncertainty that attaches to other Jewish traditions.
2. Contents of the prophecy. “Saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” To Adam was made an announcement of redemption; it is a significant fact that “the seventh from Adam” was able to make as clear an announcement of judgment. He announces the event as though it had taken place, and he was, after the event, narrating what he had seen. It was an event that was fitted to fill with astonishment. The Lord came, i.e., from heaven to earth. He came with a brilliant retinue, viz. “ten thousands of his holy ones” (apparently the angels) he came to execute judgment, which is the very language Christ uses of what was assigned him by the Father (Joh 5:27). He came to execute judgment upon all, i.e., both godly and ungodly. He came to convict, i.e., bring home guilt to all included in the latter class (therefore in Jude’s time too), both for their works and for their speeches. “A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit”‘ The ungodly had their works of ungodliness which they had ungodly wrought. The ungodly sinners had their hard speeches which they had spoken against the Lord. Five times is the thought of ungodliness brought in. We may account for it by the strong impression Enoch had of the ungodliness that was around him. Men were working works as though they were never to be brought into judgment for them. God they thought of only to utter hard things against him who was Infinite and Essential Reasonableness and Tenderness. When brooding over the ungodliness of his day, Enoch was moved to predict, in rhythmic form, a coming, world-wide judgment.
3. Application of the prophecy. “These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts (and their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.” These are hard speakers against the Lord, especially in regard to their lot, They are murmurers, complainers of their lotwhich is connected with their lusts (not God-governed desires), which are not easily satisfied. And, in murmuring and complaining, “their mouth speaketh great swelling words;” they reflect on God for not making their lot better, they seek to impress men with the great things they are entitled to. While thus they exalt themselves, they can demean themselves far enough in fawning upon persons from whom they hope to obtain an advantage.
IX. APOSTOLIC TEACHING.
1. Its contents. “But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you, In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts.” The prophecy of Enoch was of most ancient date; he now refers his readers to what was within their own recollection. They had not heard our Lord Jesus Christ; but they had heard his apostles. They were thus very near the highest source. Those apostles spoke of the last time, i.e., the period immediately preceding the completion of the kingdom of God. They spoke of mockers then. Of all classes of men these are the worst. They are not satisfied with ignoring holy thingsthey turn them into ridicule. They are represented by the free-thinkers of the present day, who are increasingly aggressive. There is this to be said that where there is an earnest Christianity, dislike of it takes the form of mocking. In the last time there will be an earnest Christianity such as we have not yet seen; and we may also expect that infidelity will then be most bitter when its utter defeat is near. We have the authority of the apostles here for saying that infidelity and libertinism go together. Mockers, they say, “walking after their own lusts of ungodliness.” The explanation of the infidelity of many is their dislike of godly restraints.
2. Its application. “These are they who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit.” It is very difficult to fix the meaning of the first part of this description. It is against the old translation, “they who separate themselves,” that the men in question were present at the love-feasts. Neither does it appear that they were connected with a Christian society to “make separations,” as the Revised translation bears. The idea of mocking is not lost sight of, as appears from the following verse. But, as if mocking were already asserted of these men, the thought proceeds, “These mockers are they.” What, then, are we to make of the word which has given so much trouble? Taking the literal meaning to be “to put the limit away from,” we would translate, “they who take excess of liberty.” This is in accordance with the second idea in the apostolic saying. There is an easy transition then to “psychical.” “The ‘psychical’ of Scripture are those in whom the spirit, as the organ of the Divine Spirit, is suppressed, dormant, for the time as good as extinct; whom the operations of the Divine Spirit have never lifted into the region of spiritual things” (Trench). Hence it is added, “having not the Spirit.” These mockers make their own bounds, because under natural impulses instead of the Spirit’s influences.
X. EXHORTATION TO READERS REGARDING THEMSELVES,
1. Connection of life with faith. “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith.” There is a couplet which is taken to convey this meaningthat one mode of faith is just as good as another.
“For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight;
His can’t be wrong, whose life is in the right.”
It is true that his mode of faith can’t be wrong, whose life is in the right; but it is also true that his life can’t be in the right, whose mode of faith is wrong. What we believe is the foundation; what we build on it is our life. This is in the line of Jude’s thought. He has characterized mockers as libertines. And, having recorded this charge against the infidels or scoffers of his day (even within the pale of the Church), he turns to his own true brethren in the faith, and says to them, addressing them by an endearing title, “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith.” As if he said, “Ye have a most holy faith, let your life (to correspond with it) also be most holy.” “Faith here is equivalent to the Object of faith. We do not build upon our act of faith; that is the heresy of building on ourselves. We build on the Object of our faith. Now, the great Object of our faith is God. We believe in Godthat is the first article of our creed. We are theists, and not atheists. But more definitely we are Christian believerswe believe in a God identified with the Christian manifestation. We believe in a God to whom sin was so heinous that nothing but the blood of his incarnate Son could suffice to take it away. Should there not, then, be an awful sanctity about our life? It should be far removed from that of infidels, who have no object of faith to elevate them; and from that of pagans, who have an unholy faith; and from that of Romanists, whose faith is to a great extent nullified by such excesses as indulgences and purgatory; and from that of rationalists, who think of sin being taken away without satisfaction being made for it. What we count an immeasurable advantage in our creed should be turned into a corresponding advantage in our life. But is it not sometimes as though we did not believe our creed? Is there not a vast discrepancy between our life and the embodiment of our creed in the life of Christ? Let us listen, then, to the exhortation of this servant of Christ, and advocate of consistency.
2. Recognition of the Trinity in connection with our life. We believe, we have said, in God; we believe also in the Three Persons of the Godheadin Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We are to build upon the Three Persons, though in different ways. “Praying in the Holy Spirit.” Under the dispensation of the Spirit, we must not forget the work of the Spirit. The Spirit is here placed first, and in connection with prayer. In a good life we must give the first place to prayer. It qualifies us for receiving the bounties of Providence, puts us into working order, arms us against temptation. But prayer, to do this, must be prayer in the Holy Spirit. How can we wrestle with God in our own might? How can we have the right desires from ourselves? It is only when we pray in the might of the Holy Spirit, who is promised to help our infirmities and to teach us how we ought to pray, that we can succeed. The true idea of prayer is the Spirit of God pleading in our prayers, exciting within us the right desiresdesires which at times cannot find expression in words, but only in sighings and groanings. We have often to complain that our prayers are cold. We have come under some worldly influence, and have no heart to pray. At such a time let us not neglect the duty, or attempt its performance in our own strength; but let us, in despair of self, depend on the Spirit’s help, saying, “Come, O Breath, and breathe on these dead desires, that they may live!” “Keep yourselves in the love of God.” This we are to do when, from the mount of prayer, we go down into the world. Our whole duty in the world may be summed up in thisthat we keep ourselves in the love of God there. The temptation is to slide into the love of self. In things forbidden we cannot love God at all. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” In things lawful we can love God only by putting due restraints on ourselves. Let us eat and drink and work, not for selfish ends, but for the glory of God. To keep ourselves thus in the love of God will require effort. Without effort we can keep ourselves in the love of self. Without effort men are sliding every day to ruin. It is not those alone that sin hard who are lost, but those also who do not bestir themselves. Let us, then, make every effort to keep ourselves out of the love of self, and in the love of God. “Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” We have been trying hard to keep ourselves in the love of God amid worldly allurements. We are not now to rest in anything we have done, as though we had advantaged God in any way. “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” We are conscious of our feebleness as agents. We find it hard to live the most holy life, to attain to eminent distinction in holiness. We are conscious of self soiling even our best efforts. It is well, then, that we can took for mercy. But for mercy we should faint. It is well that we can look for the mercy “of our Lord Jesus Christ.” We can hope that our poor services will be accepted of God with an all-merciful regard to that perfect service which he has rendered on our behalf. Thus, then, are we to build up the most holy life. We are to begin with prayer in the Holy Spirit; we are to go about everything in the world in the love of God, and then we are to look for acceptance of what we have done through Jesus Christ. That is to be our order of procedure “unto the life eternal” (the unity of thought connects this with all)until this life of time is merged in the life of eternity, until this very imperfect life is merged in the perfect life above. Let us look forward to this complement and goal of our life as that which is fitted to free and uplift us under present conditions.
XI. EXHORTATION TO READERS REGARDING THE ENDANGERED.
1. Those who are in incipient danger. “And on some have mercy, who are in doubt.” By those “who are in doubt” we are to understand those who hesitated in their judgment of the course pursued by the men with whom Jude has been dealing. In their hesitating mood there was danger of their, being drawn into the same course. They were certainly to be condemned for not being able to discriminate between a Christian course and an un-Christian course; but they were to be treated with mercy. If care was taken to give them Christian enlightenment, so that they were able to pronounce decisively against an un-Christian course, their safety would be secured.
2. Those who are in extreme danger. “And some save, snatching them out of the fire.” There seems to be a reference here, as in Jud 1:9, to Zec 3:2. Joshua (representing Jerusalem), clothed with filthy garments, was a brand already burning. With his filthy garments taken away, and clothed with a change of raiment, he was a brand plucked out of the fire. There were some who had come under the polluting influence of the evil men, for whose contracted pollution the fire was burning. They were not beyond recovery, but as in extreme danger, mercy toward them needed to take a certain swiftness and forcibleness. Let them be snatched hastily, even violently, as brands out of the fire.
3. Those who are a source of danger. “And on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” There are some who, in their pollution, are fit objects for mercy; and yet they are a source of danger to those who have to deal with them, from the filling of the mind with images of pollution. The only safety in dealing with such is, along with wholesome fear leading to prayer for Divine help, a strong detestation of the pollution sought to be removed. The Saviour was thus proof against the pollution with which he had to deal, and none of us is safe in the neighbourhood of pollution without his detestation. Only we shall be very unlovely if, with his detestation, we have not also his mercy (Luk 15:2).
XII. CONCLUSION IN THE FORM OF A DOXOLOGY.
1. God addressed.
(1) With reference to the condition of the readers. “Now unto him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy.” They were in danger of stumbling from the ungodly influences to which they were exposed, and the treacherousness of their own hearts. God is addressed as able to guard them from stumbling. We are like infants beginning to walk; he is the Strong One who keeps watch over us, so that we do not stumble. The result of his guarding them from stumbling would ultimately be his placing them in a secure position. This would be at the time of the full display of his glory. They would then be in such a state that the all-searching eye would discover no blemish in them. It would be a time of exceeding joy to them, meaning their triumph over all opposing elements, over the evil of their hearts, and over the mortality of their bodies. They must not stumble on their way to the glorious consummation. For this (by implication) Jude prays on their account; and they (he suggests) must remember where their safety lies.
(2) According to the Christian manifestation. “To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord.” “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me.” It is only when we stand clear of the polytheistic idea, and think of sovereignty as undivided, that we have a proper object for our adoration. It is not his simple sovereignty that we adore, but his sovereignty joined to saving power. We can look up to him, and say, out of our consciousness of what he has done for us, “Our Saviour.” It is in the New Testament that we have this clearly disclosed. God saves through an Agent of his own appointment, even his own Son in our nature. Jesus, having wrought out salvation in a wonderful manner, claims our obedience; and, by yielding obedience to him as our Lord, we come into possession of salvation. Saved, we have a new song put in our moutheven praise unto our God.
2. The ascription to God.
(1) Fourfold quality. “Be glory, majesty, dominion, and power.” Who can measure the breadth, and length, and depth, and height of the Divine perfections? We ascribe to God the right to receive praise, to be counted great, to exercise dominion, and to put forth power, to the exclusion of every other, and beyond what we can grasp.
(2) Threefold time. “Before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.” There is the division into time past, present, and future. God was worthy of being adored before all timewhen yet there was no creature to adore him. He is worthy of being adored now, in what he is doing for his people. And he will be worthy of being adored through all the ages that will elapse after the salvation of his people has been completed. It becomes us, in token of our acknowledgment, and in expectation of our triumph, to add our “Amen.”R.F.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Jud 1:1. And brother of James, He might also have called himself the brother of our Lord, for he was nearly related to the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh; but though the evangelists have given them that title, yet neither Jude, nor his brother James, have ever taken it to themselves: perhaps they avoided it out of their great humility, or to intimate that, though they had known Christ after the flesh, or valued themselves for being related to him, yet now henceforth they knew him so no more, nor valued themselves so much upon that account, as in their being his faithful servants. Preserved in Jesus Christ, means, “preserved in that hour of temptation, when so many false teachers had corrupted the gospel, and such numbers of Christians had fallen from the purity of it.” As they retained their integrity, they would be preserved from the judgments which were coming upon those who had fallen away; and they might depend upon it, that, if faithful unto death, they should in due time receive their reward.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jud 1:1-2 . The superscription is in form similar to that of the Epistles of Paul and Peter: . . .] , as its position and Rom 1:1 , Phi 1:1 , Jas 1:1 (see also Tit 1:1 ), show, denotes not the general service of believers to Christ (Schott), but the special service of those appointed to the gospel ministry. The more definite statement of office is here wanting; as the author is not the Apostle Jude (see Introd. sec. 1), so that his position in the Christian church is to be regarded as similar to that which a Barnabas, an Apollos, and others occupied, who, without being apostles in the narrower sense of the term, yet exercised a ministry similar to the apostolic.
With the first appellation the second is connected by (see Tit 1:1 ), which, although not precisely a contrast (Schott), yet marks a distinction. This appellation serves not only to indicate who this Jude is (Arnaud), but likewise to justify his writing. Jude does not call himself “the brother of the Lord,” because his bodily relation to Christ stepped behind his spiritual, perhaps also because that surname already specially belonged to James.
[ ] . . .] According to the reading , expresses not the mere instrument of holiness, but holiness as consisting in fellowship with God. The participle is either substantive , co-ordinate to the following , or adjective , which is more probable on account of the similar participial form, .
According to the reading , may denote the sphere within which the readers are , namely, by the writer. Against the opinion of de Wette, “that in this objective designation the subjectivity of the author cannot be mixed,” Col 1:2 might be appealed to, where Paul names the readers of his Epistle , that is, the brethren of himself and Timotheus (see also 2Jn 1:1 and 3Jn 1:1 ); but in relation to what follows: . . , this view is correct.
In the Vulgate, is taken as an idea by itself: his qui sunt in Deo Patre, etc.; and then to this idea the two attributes are added: and . . . . Apart from its harshness, not only is it opposed to this construction that by it the parallelism (incorrectly denied by Schott) of the two members of the clause which is strongly indicated both by the form of the sentence and also by in reference to the following is destroyed, but also would then be without any proximate statement. The same is also the case when it is assumed, with Rampf and Schott, that the participles and . . are equally subordinate to , and explained as expressing “the living ground on which the called possess that which is expressed in the two participles” (Schott). The supplying of or , necessary for this view, is at all events arbitrary; moreover, the juxtaposition of . is extremely harsh.
It is incorrect to take as equivalent to (Hensler); is rather to be retained in its proper signification, in which it is entirely suitable to the idea , as the love which proceeds from any person dwells in him, the as they are loved by God so are they loved in God. Hofmann incorrectly explains it: “who have been accepted in love by God;” for never has this meaning, not even in the passages cited by Hofmann: 1Th 1:4 ; 2Th 2:13 ; Col 3:12 .
God is called in His relation to Christ , not to men: see Phi 2:11 ; Gal 1:1 ; and Meyer on the latter passage.
] The dative . is not dependent on an to be supplied from (Luther: preserved in Jesus Christ). Hofmann indeed appeals for this supplement to Khner, Gr. II. p. 477; but incorrectly, as this is rendered impossible by intervening. What Khner says could only be the case were it written: . Also is not the causative dative with the passive, instead of with the genitive, but the dative commodi: for Christ (Bengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, and others). The participle is used neither instead of the present participle, as Grotius thinks, nor is it here to be understood of the act completed before God (de Wette, Wiesinger); but it simply denotes that which has taken place up to the time when the Epistle was written; thus: “to the called, who have been kept for Christ;” namely, in order to belong to Him in time and in eternity (so also Schott). [7] The idea . is completely explained from the falling away from Christ which had taken place among so many; see Jud 1:4 ; comp. also Joh 17:11 ; 1Pe 1:5 .
Although cannot be grammatically connected with , and although it primarily belongs to , yet it indicates by whom the preservation has taken place; Hornejus: quos Deus Pater Christo donavit et asservavit huc usque, ne ab impostoribus seducerentur et perirent.
] a designation in the Pauline sense of those who have not only heard the gospel, but have embraced it by faith; see Meyer on 1Co 1:24 .Jud 1:2 . . . .] The word is used in the formula of salutation only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. The addition is peculiar to Jude. The relation of the three terms is thus to be understood: is the demeanour of God toward the ; their condition founded upon it; and their demeanour proceeding from it as the effect of God’s grace. Accordingly is used here as in Eph 6:23 (see Meyer in loco ); only here the love is to be limited neither specially to the brethren (Grotius), nor to God (Calov, Wiesinger). Still may also be the love of God to the ; comp. Jud 1:21 and 2Co 13:13 [14] (so Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, de Wette-Brckner, Schott, and others). No ground of decision can be derived from . With the reading the second explanation merits the preference, although the position of this expression after is somewhat strange. On , see 1Pe 1:2 ; this form is apparently derived from Dan. 3:31.
[7] Arnauld incorrectly explains it: aux appels gards par J. Chr., c’est–dire: ceux qui ont t appels J. Chr. par la prdication de l’Evangile et que J. Chr. garde fidles.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Jud 1:1-4
Contents:Address, salutation (Jud 1:1-2), occasion and scope of the Epistle, warning against bold false teachers, and pressing exhortation to the champions of the faith to contend with them.
Jude, the1 servant of Jesus Christ,2 and brother of James, to them3 that are sanctified4 2by5 God the Father, and preserved6 in7 Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. 3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of8 the common9 salvation, it was needful10 for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once11 delivered unto the saints. 4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before12 of old ordained to this condemnation,13 ungodly men, turning the grace14 of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord15 God, and our Lord16 Jesus Christ.
Title: Rec; . . . L.M.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Jud 1:1. Jude (from ,, the praised, the confessor), different from Judas Iscariot and Judas Lebbus, or Thaddus. See Introduction.
A servant of Jesus Christ.; used in a restricted sense of persons intrusted with an office in the Church, cf. 2Pe 1:1. Paul calls himself so, Rom 1:1; Tit 1:1; Php 1:1; and Jam 1:1. Paul and Peter superadd their call to the Apostolate; Jude and James omit . The simple reason of this omission is that they were no Apostles. This omission is the more remarkable in the case of Jude, because, as has been shown in the Introduction to 2 Peter, during the composition of this Epistle, he had before him the 2d Ep. of Peter, and especially also its introductory sentences. If the author of this Epistle and Judas Thaddus, the Apostle, were identical, the silence he observes concerning his Apostleship would be unaccountable.
Brother of James.Of that James, who was a brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and author of the Epistle that bears his name. See Introduction. Both are silent concerning their fraternal relation to the Lord. Why? Both may hare remembered His words: Who is my mother and who are my brethren? Mat 12:49. A servant of Christ is really a nearer relation than a mere brother after the flesh, cf. 2Co 5:16. It is commonly said that modesty prompted Jude to call himself a brother of James and not a brother of the Lord (Bengel, Stier); but we ought not to forget that the recollection of that fraternal relation must have been very humiliating to him, for, although so nearly related to the Lord, he did not believe in Him for a long time, Joh 7:3-5. According to Huther, the words brother of James are not only intended to designate the individuality of the author (cf. Joh 14:22), but also to justify his writing; they possibly intimate that this Epistle was destined for the readers of that of James, seeing they are not described in more particular terms. See Introduction.
To the calledJesus Christ.To the called, sc., greeting; which is the principal word of the whole clause, signifies not only persons invited or bidden, but those in whom the Divine calling out of the world has already become efficient, 1Pe 1:15; 1Pe 2:9; 1Pe 2:21; 1Pe 3:9; 1Pe 5:10; 2Pe 1:3-10; called saints, 1Co 1:2; 1Co 1:24; Rom 1:6-7; Gal 1:6.
. To those who, in communion with God the Father, have been acquitted from the guilt and punishment of sins, and made a beginning in the sanctification of the Spirit, cf. 1Pe 1:2.
I . Huther:The Part. Perf. simply denotes that which had taken place up to the time when the Epistle was written, but this condition must be conceived continuing according to the force of the Perfect tense. Cf. Winer, p. 286, sq.So Stier:Jude conceives his readers as having been preserved until then. They are preserved from seduction and apostasy for Jesus Christ so that they are His possession, the reward of His sufferings, His glory and crown, enabling Him to say of them,Thine they were and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word, Joh 17:6; Joh 17:12; 1Pe 1:5.
[Wordsworth;The evil angels are preserved or kept for judgment (2Pe 2:4); the heavens are preserved or kept for fire; but ye are preserved or kept for Jesus Christ, as a peculiar people (1Pe 2:9), and there is an everlasting inheritance preserved or kept in heaven for you.M.]
Jud 1:2. Mercy unto youmultiplied… Instead of it, 1Pe 1:2; 2Pe 1:2 have , while occurs in Gal 6:16; 2Ti 1:16, and in connection with 1Ti 1:2; 2Ti 1:2; 2Jn 1:3; cf. 1Pe 1:3. It is the grace of God and Christ condescending to the helpless and miserable. Stier:We learn from the conclusion, Jud 1:21, that Jude refers here particularly to the mercy or grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he connects therewith the love of God, and appropriately assigns to the peace of the Holy Ghost the place of a living centre. De Wette also explains as the love of God to Christians, deeming the verb to be better suited to such an interpretation. On , cf. 1Pe 1:2. Bengels note is: a testimony of the Holy Trinity.
Jud 1:3. When I gave all diligence, etc. . To use all diligence, to be earnest in something either inwardly in mind and purpose, or outwardly in the execution of an action. Peter has , 2Pe 1:5, and , Jud 1:15. Here it denotes inward purpose. The Part. Pres., as de Wette observes, expresses the authors action at the time he had occasion to write (cf. Winer, p. 406), but he seems to be wrong in supposing his writing to be already an action on the point of being executed. His opinion is, that Jude had been engaged on the composition of a longer and more comprehensive Epistle,(the loss of which we have to lament), when he was for the time called away from that work in order to write this present Epistle. His reference to Sherlock is inaccurate, for he only adverts to Judes intention of writing more fully.
Concerning our common salvation.He had desired to write concerning its acquisition, enjoyment and preservation. This exhibits a contrast to the hortatory Epistle which circumstances (the appearance of antinomians or some other cause unknown to us) constrained him to indite.
I felt the necessity, etc., I had with me, I felt within me the necessity, I saw myself inwardly constrained, cf. Luk 14:18; Luk 23:17; 1Co 7:37; Heb 7:27; denotes the character and tone, as well as the scope and matter of the Epistle.
, to fight concerning and for a thing [metaphorically in the sense of earnestly contending for a thing.M.]. Bengel: There is a twofold duty, strenuously to fight for the faith against enemies, and to edify oneself in faith, Jud 1:20; cf. Neh 4:16, etc. [, supercertare, is to fight, standing upon a thing which is assaulted and which the adversary desires to take away, and it is to fight so as to defend it, and to retain it.M.]
For the faith, , here the faith that is believed, objectively, the Gospel as Jud 1:20; Gal 3:25; Rom 1:5. We have here a reference to 2Pe 1:1, whence it follows that there also must be taken objectively.
Once, not=at one time, formerly, but once for all, so that it continues thus forever, that it is liable to no changes, and that no new revelation is to be looked for. [Casaubon: To contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Divine words, few in number, but rich in meaning. If rightly understood and duly obeyed, these words would put an end to all modern controversies, and restore peace to the Church. Do we desire to know what the true faith is? St. Jude here tells usthat which was once, and once for all delivered to the saints. Every doctrine which can be shown to be posterior to that faith, is new; and every doctrine that is new is false.M.]. No other faith will be given. Bengel.
Delivered (communicated) not immediately by God, as Bengel interprets, but by the Apostles, cf. 2Pe 2:21; 1Co 11:2; 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; Luk 1:2.
To the saints.Cf. 1Pe 2:9; 1Pe 3:5; 2Pe 1:21; 2Pe 3:2; Col 1:2; Col 1:12; Col 3:12; Phm 1:7; Heb 3:1; Heb 6:10; Eph 1:1; Eph 1:15; Eph 1:18; Eph 2:19; Eph 3:8; Eph 3:18. [Bengel: Sanctis omnibus ex fide sanctissima, Jud 1:20.M.]
Jud 1:4. For certain mencondemnation.This verse supplies the reason of that necessity and of the contest which the readers are bound to maintain.
, to enter by the side of, to creep in stealthily by a side-door. Those deceivers passed the right door, Joh 10:7, and like thieves and robbers entered by some other way into the fold of the Church, Joh 10:1. De Wette says rightly, that it is not said that these men did creep in from without, but only, that their sentiments and habits were foreign to those of the Christian community, and that they ought not to belong to it. Similar are the expressions , 2Pe 2:1, and , Gal 2:4. Cf. 1Jn 2:19; 2Ti 3:6.
[Le mot a quelque chose de mprisant, comme dans Gal 2:12. Arnaud.M.]
. The Article is used emphatically with the Participle, if the participial character is to be made especially prominent, cf. Winer, p. 120. They are unknown, insignificant men, but they have long since been described in the word of God. , to write beforehand of one, to predict by the word and by types Cf. Rom 15:4. The pregnant term denotes,
1. That they were described beforehand, e.g., Psa 35:16; Psa 10:4; Psa 36:2; Psa 58:4; Pro 13:25, and typified in the people who lived at the time of the flood, in the people of Sodom, in the wicked persecutors of David.
2. They were beforehand appointed for judgment, not by an absolute predestination, but because of their wickedness, which God foresaw in the light of His omniscience. Isa 4:3; rendered by the LXX. , might be compared with this passage and applied to the eternal purpose of God, compared with a book, as Calvin does, but Huther rightly observes that , long since, from of old, forbids such an interpretation. It is this very word which renders all reference to the Epistles of Paul and Peter inadmissible, as Grotius sees here a particular allusion to 2 Peter 2; it is doubtful whether, as Bengel maintains, there is here a reference to the Book of Enoch in the sense that Enoch predicted long before what afterwards became fixed in writing. [Alford thinks that the reference is to the Book of Enoch, cf. Jud 1:17, but deems it probable that the warnings contained in the historical facts mentioned below, may also be meant.M.]
For this condemnation, of which the Apostle [?] treats in the sequel, seeing it, as it were, already present. , here a judgment of condemnation.The corresponding passage in Peter is,whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not, 2Pe 2:3. [Wordsworth: The doom which they would incur, had been , written public beforehand in the prophecy of Enoch (Jud 1:14), and visibly displayed in the punishment of the Israelites (Jud 1:5), and in that of the rebel angels (Jud 1:6), and had been graven indelibly in letters of fire on the soil of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jud 1:7.)
Since God is unchangeably just and holy, all who sin after the manner of those thus punished, must look for like punishment to theirs. They have been publicly designated beforehand for it, by the punishment of those whom they imitate in sin. Therefore, these false teachers cannot plead ignorance of the consequences of their sin; and you will be without excuse, if you are deceived by them.
The false teachers here specially noted, were the Simonians, Nicolaitans and Ebionites.M.]
Ungodlylasciviousness, i.e., according to Stiers explanation, those who refuse to know any thing of fear, submission and adoration. Men who, having torn themselves loose from God, the root of our life, show this in their life, cf. 1Pe 4:18; 2Pe 2:5; 2Pe 3:7; Jud 1:15; Rom 4:6; Rom 5:6; 1Ti 1:9. Their ungodliness is described by two exhibitions: a. They turn the grace of God into lasciviousness; not=evangelical doctrine, Christian religion (Calov, al.), nor=acquired life of grace (de Wette, who compares Gal 5:4; 1Pe 5:12), for the description which follows renders it highly improbable, that these men had received (although only in part, as Stier thinks) the first-fruits of the Spirit in conscious regeneration. But it is the grace offered to them in baptism, in calling, in the preaching of the word, in Holy Scripture, acquired for them by Christ and now ready for their acceptance. They take hold of it, but put it in the wrong place, viz., there where the law ought to be, this is the force of ; instead of using it as an incentive to holiness, they employ it as a cloak of maliciousness, 1Pe 2:16, as a passport of unrighteousness, Rom 6:1-2; 2Pe 2:19; Gal 5:13. They draw the daring conclusion: Because God is so merciful, because Christ has redeemed us from sin, because this and that sin have been passed unpunished, therefore we need not be so particular concerning sin, cf. Sir 5:3, sq.; Heb 7:12. Of course they thereby do not change the nature of grace, but only deprive themselves of its salutary effects. [They change the state of grace and Christian liberty into a state of moral licence and wantonness; so Alford. Bede: Hanc ejus gratiam transferunt in luxuriam, qui nunc tanto Iicentius et liberius peccant, quanta minus se vident asperitate legis de admissis fascinoribus examinari.M.]
. Huther: An expression of the sense of adoption, not exactly, as Bengel maintains, in opposition to the ungodly.
, cf. 1Pe 4:3; 2Pe 2:7; 2Pe 2:18.
And deny the only Master, God and the Lord Jesus Christ. . [See note 14 in App. Crit.M.]. If were a genuine reading, the most natural construction would be this: They deny the Father and the Son (although even in this case the sole reference to Christ would be possible), for the want of the Article would be no objection to it, because it might be omitted on account of , cf. Winer, pp. 141. 142. Even without the probably false reading , may be applied to the Father, to the Son, like in Tit 2:13, according to the doctrine of Paul, relates to the Father, to the Son; but the comparison of 2Pe 2:1, which Jude had before him, shows that the two predicates are to be understood of Christ. While Peter declares Christ to be the Lord that bought even those deceivers with His own blood, Jude infers therefrom that He is their only legitimate Lord, not as contrasted with the other persons of the Godhead, but with foreign lords, who rule over and in them. Isa 26:13. This view of the passage is not affected by , which is generally attributed to the Father, and retains its ordinary and usual meaning. Huther, on the other hand, understands of the Father, and cites Enoch 48:11: They denied the Lord of the spirits and His Messiah, cf. 1Jn 2:22; but this quotation is fully counterbalanced by that of 2Pe 2:1.
[Alford applies to the Father, and argues:
1. That in every other place is used of God, cf. Luk 2:29; Act 4:24; Rev 6:10; Jer 4:10.
2. That the addition seems to bind this meaning to it here.
3. That the denial of God by disobeying His law is the epexegetic resumption of the last clause.
4. are hardly distinguishable if both applied to Christ. On these grounds he agrees with Huther in regarding the rejected as having been, although a gloss, yet a true one; and would remind the reader, once for all, that the reference of any term in the parallel place of 2 Peter, is no guide for us here, seeing that it belongs to the extremely curious relation of the two passages to each other, that many common terms are used in different senses.M.]
Deny, see 2Pe 2:1. The reference here is according to the description of those deceivers, more especially to their practical denying (so de Wette and Huther). Even the book of Enoch (67:8. 10; 91:7) connects in the case of the ungodly the denial of the Lord of the spirits with voluptuousness.
[DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL]
[Jud 1:3. The faith is that system of truths revealed in the Holy Scriptures concerning the dispensations of the God, whom we adore, and into whose name we were baptized, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three Persons, one God. These truths are proposed to us as the ground of our hope, our comfort, and our joy; as the principles on which the conduct of life is to be framed, accepted and rewarded. We receive the revelation, which contains the truths, upon that, plenary and satisfactory evidence vouchsafed us of its authenticity, and we receive the truths, which it contains, on the authority of the Revealer. The different articles of our belief, dispersed in the Scriptures, were very early collected into summaries styled creeds, recited at baptism, and constituting thenceforward the badge and test of a mans profession. By a formulary of this kind the catechumen himself was instructed; the faith once delivered was transmitted down to posterity; the members of the spiritual society were kept together; the doctrines, by them believed and taught, were made known to the world, and distinguished from a multitude of heterogeneous and erroneous opinions, by them disclaimed; a connection with the maintainers of which would justly have brought discredit on themselves and their cause. For these reasons the use of creeds appears to have at first been introduced and since continued. Home.M.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The calling of God the beginning of all His exhibitions of grace.General and particular calling. Mans relation thereto.Believers the possession, the spoil, the crown and reward of the Lord Jesus.The Christian life a state of constant warfare.The great danger of abusing grace.The manifold denial of the Lord that bought us.
Starke:Every Christian should be an honest Judas; i.e., a confessor, confessing Christ before the world according to the belief of his heart in word and life, that Christ may confess him before His Father. Mat 10:32.Would that all Jews were such, or would soon become such. Rom 10:1.It is not enough for a mans salvation that he receive the call of grace, he must accept it, become holy and persevere in grace, Isa 55:3 : Rev 2:10; 1Co 15:1-2.Christianity is never at a stand-still, but ever growing and progressing, 1Th 3:12; 1Th 4:1.We must fight for our faith against our lusts, the world and Satan; otherwise we shall not receive the end of faith, the salvation of our souls, 1Pe 1:9.God has prepared His grace for the penitent that are of a broken heart, Isa 61:1, and namely for their consolation and amendment. This truth ungodly men reverse in that they accord grace to the impenitent, not for their amendment, but for their security.The more secret an enemy, the more dangerous, Psa 64:6. 7.Sinning in reliance upon grace is the poison which corrupts and kills the greatest number of souls. The Gospel is to them a savour of death unto death.Those who deny Christ that bought them with His blood, are the servants of the devil, 1Jn 3:8.
K. H. Rieger:Even evil times should neither make us evil and harsh, nor cause us to fall from our first love. Whatever remains to be done, must be done by love, 1Th 2:7.Contending without ones own edification would amount to quarrelling. Edification without contending is indifference which does not sufficiently consider what edifying is. Cf. Jud 1:20.The devil introduces his children of malice among the children of the kingdom, even as tares creep in among good wheat and at first cannot be distinguished from it. His lies always spring up under some borrowed rag of truth.
Stier:In the accredited, sealed word of the Scriptures we have the authentic deposit of the precious jewel of the first testimony of faith, which deposit is to be preserved and necessarily becomes the permanent rule of faith.The faith delivered to Christendom is the treasure for the unimpaired possession and enjoyment of which we must fight against hostile powers.God has a holy purpose of justice in that He gives up to the deception of powerful error all those who would not believe in the truth with all their heart, as they ought, 2Th 2:8-12.Those who will not obey Christ, to the Christ whom they ought and must know as the Lord, have also no God in heaven, no gods (Psalms 82; Exo 22:28) on earth, and become through and through rebels and insurrectionists.
[Barrow:Some vehemency (some smartness and sharpness) of speech may sometimes be used in defence of truth, and impugning errors of bad consequence; especially when it concerneth the interests of truth that the reputation and authority of its adversaries should somewhat be abased or abated. If by a partial opinion or reverence toward them, however begotten in the minds of men, they strive to overbear or discountenance a good cause, their cause, so far as truth permitteth, and need requireth, may be detected and displayed. For this cause particularly may we presume our Lord (otherwise so meek in His temper, and mild in his carriage toward all men) did characterize the Jewish scribes in such terms, that their authority (being then so prevalent with the people) might not prejudice the truth, and hinder the efficacy of His doctrine. This is part of that , the duty of contending earnestly for the faith, which is incumbent upon us.M.]
Sermon-Themes:
Jud 1:1. Spiritual fellowship with Christ.
Jud 1:3. The rule of faith. Zeal for the cause of Christianity. The faith once delivered to the saints, a depositum or trust, committed to the care of the Church. Civil government and religion.
Cf. on Jud 1:4. Claget, Nicholas: The abuse of Gods grace, discovered in the kinds, causes, punishments, symptoms, cures, differences, cautions, and other practical improvements thereof. 4to., Oxford, 1659.M.]
Footnotes:
[1] Jud 1:1. [German:Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, brother of James, to the called that are sanctified in God the Father, and preserved for Jesus Christ.M.]
[The only instance (except Php 1:1, where the word is in the Plural), in which E. V. prefixes the definite Article to the descriptive title of the writer. Lillie.M.]
[2]Jud 1:1. [, rendered and in E. V., and not translated at all in German, may have antithetical force. De Wette says that it appends another title, different from the one preceding. It might be rendered, James, a servant of Jesus Christ, but brother of James. If this Jude is one of the brothers of the Lord (Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3), as we believe he is, this would give us a beautiful insight into the spirituality of his mind, for it might be regarded as an intimation on his part that no longer knowing Christ after the flesh, he now gloried in the far higher relationships (Mat 11:11; Mat 12:48-50; Luk 11:28) of the kingdom of heaven, gladly merging the distinction of nature in the spiritual fellowship of the brethren, whose one Master is Christ (Mat 23:8). Lillie.M.]
[3]Jud 1:1. [The construction of E. V. is not countenanced by the Greek. is a Noun, qualified by the intermediate Participles and .M.]
[4]Jud 1:1. Lachmann and Tisch. [following A. B., Sin., Vulg., Syr.] read . This reading would require to be taken by itself, viz.: to those belonging to God the Father; for to render =by or on account of would be inadmissible. De Wette considers this reading incorrect. [But A. B., Sin. recommend it as the true reading. The sense is plain, viz.: that are beloved (that have been and are, Perf.) in God the Father.M.]
[5]Jud 1:1. [=in, not by. Non solum A, sed et In Deo Patre, ut unum cum ipso sint, Joh 17:21. Witsius.M.]
[6]Jud 1:1. [. The Verb occurs 75 times in the N. T. (five times in this Epistle), and in E. V. Isaiah 58 times rendered to keep; only here and 1Th 5:23, to preserve. Wherever, as in this verse, it is used of believers, I prefer to translate it by keep, not so much on the general ground of uniformity, as on account of the large use of that term in the same connection in our Lords high-priestly prayer (John 17). Lillie.M.]
[7]Jud 1:1. [ . Translate, not in Jesus Christ, as E. V., but for Jesus Christ. Hnlein: Dativus subjecti, cui fideles Dei provida cura servati sunt. Vorstius: in eum finem, ut aliquando Christo adducantur tanquam sponsa sponso.]
[8] Jud 1:3. [German:Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you (more fully) concerning our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you in a hortatory form to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints.M.]
[=concerning, touching better than of in E. V.M.]
[Cod. Sin. reads .M.]
[9]Jud 1:3. Lachm. has after ; Syr. Vulg. ; Sin. . .M.]
[10]Jud 1:3. [ =I had need, or I felt constrained.M.]
[11] Jud 1:3. [, stronger than once,=semel et simul, semel pro semper, i.e., once for all. See Lexica.M.]
[Translate:Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto yon concerning our common salvation, I felt constrained to write unto you, exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered unto the saints.M.]
[12]Jud 1:4. [Sin. inserts before . =to write before, to declare, describe beforehand; ordained adopted by E. V. from Geneva V., is a very dubious rendering, and should be replaced by a leas objectionable word; either of the above have the merit of literal translations of the Greek.M.]
[13]Jud 1:4. [, condemnation, in the sense of punishment.M.]
[14] Jud 1:4. Lach., Tisch. Read , which is the poetic Accusative.
Griesb. and al., following the best authorities, omit , which is doubtless a gloss, and found its way into the text because is used of the Father in all passages except 2Pe 2:1; cf. Luk 2:29; Act 4:24; Rev 6:10. , moreover, did not seem to suit Christ.
[15] Jud 1:4. [A. B. C., Sin. omit . Agreeing with this omission, translate: For certain men have crept in privily, who have been long ago described beforehand (in the Holy Scriptures) for this condemnation, ungodly, perverting the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, and Lord Jesus Christ.M.]
[German:For some have crept in stealthily, who long since have been designated beforehand for this judgment, ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny the only Master, God and the Lord Jesus Christ.M.]
[16] Jud 1:4. [A. B. C., Sin. omit . Agreeing with this omission, translate: For certain men have crept in privily, who have been long ago described beforehand (in the Holy Scriptures) for this condemnation, ungodly, perverting the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, and Lord Jesus Christ.M.]
[German:For some have crept in stealthily, who long since have been designated beforehand for this judgment, ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny the only Master, God and the Lord Jesus Christ.M.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The opening of this Epistle is truly sweet. Jude addresseth all he hath to say to the Church. It is to you, Beloved, Jude saith that he writes. He then, through the greater Part of the Chapter, points out the awful state of the reprobate. But still it is to the Church he speaks of those things, for their consolation and instruction. Towards the end, he points out the safety and blessedness of the Church, and concludes in praise.
Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
The opening of this Epistle is ponderous and full of glorious truths. The Lord give grace to his church, to regard what is here said. Jude calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, and he writes his epistle to the Church of Christ. To whom should the servant of Christ minister, but to the household of his Lord? I beg once more, that this may be well noticed. I have all along, through the blessed Epistles we have passed, in this Poor Man’s Commentary, particularly pointed this out to the reader, that it is to the Church, and not to the world, the servants of our God and Savior write. They, who would be supposed to have more mercy than God himself, are willing to overlook, or have not known this distinguishing character, of those holy writings of the Apostles. Let not the reader. Jude writes to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.
If the reader hath not forgotten the Apostle Peter’s address, in his first Epistle general to the Church, in the opening of it, he will observe a beautiful correspondence to this of Jude; and which, as it shews what a oneness of heart those great Apostles had in divine truths, so will it no less prove to him, that both were under the same divine teaching. See 1Pe 1:1-2 . There is, indeed, a difference in the wording of those verses, by those Apostles; but the doctrine is the same. And the different expressions, if rightly considered, give a beauty and blessedness, to the grand truths they deliver and confirm. For, when we find the same divine offices and perfections, in one Scripture, spoken of one of the Persons of the Godhead in another, ascribed to either of the other Persons of the Godhead, what are these things, but so many collateral testimonies to the leading article of our most holy faith, that there are Three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are One. (1Jn 5:7 )
In this blessed verse Jude ascribes to God the Father the sanctification of the Church. To them that are sanctified by God the Father. And, without all doubt, God the Father hath chosen the Church in Christ before the foundation of the world, that it should be holy and without blame before him in love. (Eph 1:4 ) Nevertheless, the word translated in this verse sanctified; might have been rendered, (as is well known to the learned,) beloved in and of God the Father; which, in its meaning, more particularly refers to the electing love of God the Father. Similar to the sense of the same word, in relation to Christ, the glorious Head of the Church. Say ye of Him (said Jesus to the Jews) whom the Father hath sanctified?, (Joh 10:30 ) that is, whom the Father hath chosen? And this title of elect and chosen, as applied to Christ, is the greatest and most endeared in all the Bible, if we may judge by the manner of expression, in which God himself useth it. Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine Elect, in whom my soul delighteth! (Isa 42:1 ) Hence by the Church, whom Jude here calls sanctified by God the Father, is meant, the chosen by God the Father, whom peter calls a chosen generation (1Pe 2:9 ) and whom Moses, under the Holy Ghost, stiles a peculiar treasure to the Lord above all people. (Exo 19:5 )
Reader! Pause over the view of the Father’s everlasting love, in this special act of His, as it relates to the Church. It is from hence we date all our mercies. It is to this source, from the election of grace, and the being given to Christ, and chosen in Christ, that the Church is kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation. Hence, the Apostle to the Church: We are bound (said he) to give thanks always to God, for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth; whereunto he called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2Th 2:13-14 )
The next point of doctrine we meet with, in this blessed verse is, and preserved in Jesus Christ. Numberless blessed things are included in this comprehensive expression, Preserved in Jesus Christ. Every degree of preservation is implied, as well before our being called to Christ, as after. For, as we are chosen in Christ, before the present time-state of our nature, are truly one with Christ, by his betrothing all his people to himself, when receiving them as the gift of his Father, before the foundation of the world; so, there is a grace-union with Christ; by virtue of it, which all the members of his mystical body have; and whereby they are secretly, though mysteriously to us, preserved in him, and beheld as one with him, before their being in Adam, is brought forth in time. And though this preservation in Christ, doth not keep them, (because it was never intended so to do), from falling, with the whole race of men, in the Adam-transgression, (and indeed, thereby, all the blessings of redemption arising out of that transgression, finds opportunity for exercise), yet, it keeps them from the unpardonable sin, and from the second death; and it keeps them, in all the covenant privileges, made in the ancient settlements of eternity, between the Persons of the Godhead. Who shall calculate or write down in the history of one child of God, much less the whole Church, the wonders of this preserving grace, in the ten thousand times ten thousand instances of it? Preserved in Jesus Christ, before called to Jesus Christ. Preserved in all the after stages of life, when called by grace, until grace is finished in glory. The church in every individual member, may, and indeed ought, daily to ponder the melting subject; but we must enter eternity, and look back over the everlasting hills through all the path the Lord hath brought us on our way; before that we shall have a becoming sense, and apprehension, of the unspeakable blessings, contained in these four words, preserved in Jesus Christ.
“And called!” here, though the blessed name of God the Holy Ghost be not added, yet is it implied; because, in the economy of redemption, it is his peculiar office to call sinners from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and Satan to the living God. The same Almighty Spirit, which in the old creation of nature, moved over the face of the waters, and said, let there be light, is He, who in the new creation of grace, commands the light to shine out of darkness in the heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. (Gen 1:3 ; 2Co 4:6 ) And there is a beautiful order in all this, that the hand of each glorious Person of the Godhead is seen, in this great work of Covenant love towards the Church. Turn to these Scriptures in proof: Rom 8:29-30 ; Eph 1:3-10 ; Tit 3:3-7 . And so infinitely blessed and important is this great grace of the Holy Ghost, in calling, that, until it is wrought, no child of God can have any apprehension, either of God the Father’s love in election, or God the Son’s grace in redemption. It is by regeneration that we are made partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world, through lust! (2Pe 1:4-5 )
Reader! let us not dismiss the view of those united mercies, before that we have paused a moment longer, to pay the tribute of praise, on our bended knees, to God, in his threefold character of Person, for those unspeakable mercies! Blessed forever be God our Father, for sanctifying, setting apart, choosing, and electing the Church in Christ, before all worlds, that it should be holy and without blame before him in love! Blessed forever be God the Son, for uniting the Church to himself, in a oneness and union, preserving her before all time, and preserving through all time, his Church as his own, and redeeming her to himself, for his social spouse and companion, to whom he might impart all communicable grace, quickening her, when dead in trespasses and sins, and bringing her into a new and spiritual life in Christ Jesus! Blessed be the Holy Three in One, for all our mercies in time, and to all eternity. (Eph 1:3-6 ; Hos 2:18-19 ; Joh 17:2 ; 2Ti 1:9 )
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jud 1:3
He that bids us ‘contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints,’ tells us that we should do it by ‘avoiding the spirit of Cain, Corah, and Balaam’; and by ‘building up ourselves in the most holy Faith,’ not pinning it upon other men’s sleeves. Praying ‘in the Holy Ghost,’ not mumbling over matins. Keeping ‘ourselves in the love of God,’ not destroying men because they will not be of our Faith. ‘Waiting for the mercy of Jesus Christ’; not cruel, but merciful.
Cromwell’s Declaration to the People of Ireland (1650).
Jud 1:3
The participation which we have of the knowledge of truth, whatsoever she is, it is not by our owne strength we have gotten it; God hath sufficiently taught it us in that he hath made choice of the simple, common, and ignorant to teach us His wonderfull secrets. Our faith hath not been purchased by us: it is a gift proceeding from the liberality of others. It is not by our discourse or understanding that we have received our religion.
Montaigne ( Florio ), ii. 12.
References. I. 3. J. Clifford, The Christian Certainties, p. 107. R. W. Dale, Fellowship with Christ, p. 88. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii. No. 1592. H. S. Seekings, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 321. W. M. Sinclair, Simplicity in Christ, p. 27. F. B. Woodward, Sermons (2nd Series), p. 133. J. G. Rogers, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liv. p. 347. H. Allen, Penny Pulpit, No. 1640, p. 165. J. Keble, Sermons for the Saints’ Days, p. 424. Church Family Newspaper, vol. xiv. p. 832. Expositor (5th Series), vol. i. p. 144. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Jude, p. 87. I. 4, 8. Ibid. vol. vi. p. 203. I. 5-7. Ibid. p. 377. I. 6. J. Budgen, Parochial Sermons, vol. ii. p. 86. 7. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 33.
Jud 1:9
In Luther’s Table Talk this passage occurs, ‘I often think with amazement what a battle there must be between the devils and angels. I think that the angels must often give way for a time, while they fight for us’ [ Ich halt, das die Engel auch offtmals ein weil unterligen , cum certant pro nobis ].
E. Kroker, Luther’s Tischreden, p. 295, No. 586.
Reference. I. 11. B. J. Snell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. li. p. 153.
Masked Perils of Spiritual Life and Fellowship
Jud 1:12
The ungodly men who had crept unawares into the Christian community are likened by the Apostle to sunken rocks which amid smooth seas and under fair skies prove fatal to the mariner. But these hidden rocks present themselves in moods, theories, and sentiments, as well as in false brethren; and against these subtlest perils we must diligently watch. We seek now to indicate several of these submerged reefs.
I. The quest of spiritual power whilst forgetting the uses of such power is one of these hidden rocks. Miss J. M. Fry made the following statement at a recent religious gathering: ‘Many persons are actuated by mere vanity in desiring the attainment of spiritual power’. We understand how wealth may be desired for mere vanity: not with an appreciation of its uses, but out of the passion of possession and the desire of display. Intellectual power be coveted from the same motive. Spiritual power should be sought so that the ignoble elements of our nature may be effectually purged, that the sanctification of our faculties may be complete, and that all our work for God and man may be efficient. To lose sight of these practical uses is to fall into a subtle snare of refined selfishness and vanity.
II. The cultivation of character in the artistic spirit is a snare of the spiritual life. He who has understood the teaching of Christ never forgets that the good is the beautiful, and that the two must be sought in this order. He remembers that loveliness of character is first a question of essence and not of form. To cultivate moral beauty in the spirit of art and fashion is to make shipwreck on the coral reef of a silver sea.
III. Sensuous enjoyment may insinuate itself into spiritual culture so as to become a peril. It might be thought that there is little to fear from sensuality in a fervent spiritual life: it would seem so essentially coarse and vulgar as not to be susceptible of concealment or decoration. But it is not so. The ‘love-feast’ became an orgie, and the heavenly love of the individual saint may imperceptibly degenerate into dangerous sentimentalism and profane passion.
IV. To cultivate fervent devoutness apart from practical life is another peril of the spiritual. Contact with the realities of the worldly life is necessary to the health, and sanity of the soul, to the strength and soundness of our piety.
V. Talking too much about our spiritual life may prove to its detriment. A French critic writes: ‘Beware of an artist who talks too well of his art. He wastes his art in talk.’ And it is as certainly true in regard to religion. There is much that is sacred and secret about the experiences of the soul, and it is dangerous to violate its delicacy.
W. L. Watkinson, The Ashes of Roses, p. 224.
Autumn Trees Without Fruit
Jud 1:12
In the Revised Version of the New Testament the expressive phrase, ‘Autumn trees without fruit,’ takes the place of the obscure rendering, ‘Trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit’. Possibly the thought underlying this almost contradictory combination of terms is that of a tree yielding fruit that never comes to perfection, but remains on the boughs, shrivelled, good for nothing but to be burned. The new rendering is, however, a great gain. It presents, concisely and graphically, the main thought of the writer in words that cannot be misunderstood: ‘Autumn trees without fruit’ are trees without fruit at the very time when they ought to be full of fruit. St. Jude’s words are a picturesque description of character. In his days such trees were growing in the innermost enclosure of the garden of the Lord. But there are ‘autumn trees without fruit’ outside the Church as well as within its borders.
I. The glory of the autumn is that it is the fruit-bearing season, when our eyes are gladdened by the sight of
Vines with clustering branches growing,
Plants with goodly burden bowing.
Amidst the abounding autumnal increase, a fruitless tree in an orchard is an anomaly, a surprise. Why has the tree no fruit in autumn? It would be easy to draw out the parable in detail, and to show how each reason finds an analogy in some fault of character. It is, however, more important to remind those whose lives are in the springtime, that the teaching of this text is rather for them than for those whose years are in the sear and yellow leaf. How often the tree is fruitless in autumn on account of some disaster that befell it in the spring or early summer!
II. A twofold judgment must be passed on ‘autumn trees without fruit,’ whatever be the cause of their barrenness. (1) An autumn tree without fruit is a grievous loss, a bitter disappointment to its owner. (2) An autumn tree without fruit is also a failure in itself, inasmuch as the great purpose of its existence is unfulfilled. In both these respects it is a striking but sorrowful emblem of every human life that yields no fruit of praise to God and blessing unto men.
III. From a verse in St. Jude’s short epistle the conditions of fruitfulness may be learnt: ‘Ye, beloved, rooting yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God’. (1) The roots of a tree need moisture and nourishment, also room to grow. (2) Prayer is an essential condition of fruitfulness. (3) Finally, to keep ourselves in the love of God is essential to our bearing fruit that is ripe and sweet and mellow.
J. G. Tasker, God’s Garden, p. 115.
References. I. 12. H. Woodcock, Sermon Outlines (1st Series), p. 5. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiv. No. 797. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ix. p. 98. I. 12-18. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 203. I. 13. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 288. I. 14, 15. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii. No. 1307. I. 19. Spurgeon, Ibid., vol. iv. No. 167. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. pp. 43, 44. I. 20. M. Johnson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. p. 309. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xii. No. 719. I. 20, 21. T. Arnold, The Interpretation of Scripture, p. 277. H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. i. p. 395. C. D. Ball, The Saintly Calling, p. 163. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Jude, p. 97.
St. Simon and St. Jude, Apostles
Jud 1:21
Our text is taken from the Epistle of St. Jude, this being the day on which we commemorate St. Simon and St. Jude. It is not of their work that I desire to speak; let us concentrate our minds upon the exhortation of our text. This brief injunction is charged with tenderness, though not with that alone. In the same breath it whispers of the love of God, and of the responsibility of man. This very short Epistle is for vigour surpassed, perhaps, by no portion of any other. Its matter and tenor are most striking, and in large part awfulness is the tone of it. Short as it is, it finds room for some statements not found elsewhere in Scripture, or only darkly intimated, such as those respecting the angels who lost their first estate, and Michael the archangel, and the fresh particulars respecting Enoch and Balaam. Its warnings are of the most thrilling and unqualified character. As we read through the short, sharp, incisive sentences we wonder how they must have smitten the ear of those to whom they were originally addressed. Yet the outcome of all is a sentence breathing tenderest solicitude and the warmth of love itself. It seems that a fearful apostasy was in the very air all around, and the writer of the Epistle trembled with fear lest it should find a harbour in the heart of those whom he now so earnestly warns. And he sums up all in these sentences of pleading counsel, ‘Ye, beloved, building up yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves on the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life’. There are many places and relationships in our human life, in which it is honourable and a privilege to be how suggestive to bring them one and all into comparison with this position, the position of being ‘in the love of God’. This is supremely best.
I. What the Love of God is. Far, infinitely far from being a word only, or a vague profession, it is so great a necessity, that if it were once withdrawn in every sense, our own hold on life would be lost. Through many a channel it streams. There is the love which He has for all He has made; for us, as He made us, and as He would see us again. It is a creative, parental, guardian love. How good it is to be at present still inalienably in this love! There is the pitying love which He has for us as sinners, for a whole saddened, suffering, sinful world and this love, so real, so commanding, overweighs all. How good to have the resort and refuge of this love! There is the fostering, welcoming love, which He has, to receive and to help first repentant conviction, first penitent tearfulness, first practical endeavour, first symptoms of the returning prodigal. Oh, how good to have the help of this love! I There is the love which He has to those who have strayed from the Lord, who have fallen, who have denied Him! and whom He would receive again, with tenfold pitying grace. There is the love which He has to a company of brethren and sisters in the truth, in Christ. Oh, how needed is this love!
II. The Fulness of Sense in which We may be in it. The love of God is so vast, that there is no risk of not being entirely surrounded by it, safely wrapped in it bathed in it. The love of the creature has danger in it; but in and to the love of God, you may literally give yourself up, ‘spirit, soul, and body,’ with a safe and a blessed abandon. The love of God has no fickleness, no uncertainty about it. ‘The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.’ Nothing ‘shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus.’
III. We may Keep in it for Ever. Of all else that is innocent, honourable, good, and great, in which we may rest, we have to say (as when some morning awakes us), it is time to be getting up! But never, never so, if our place of folding is ‘in the love of God’. In it, work and rest, sleep and wake, day to day, and night to night, while you live even here below; and when you last lie down to sleep ‘in’ it, let the morn awake you, it will be still to find you ‘in’ it; ‘in’ it satisfied; ‘in’ it ‘clad in bright and deathless bloom;’ ‘in’ it, for ever supremely blest! So then, ‘keep yourselves in the love of God’ in the one only way of doing so, by giving yourself afresh to Him Who alone can ‘keep you’.
References. I. 21. J. W. Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxvii. p. 8. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii. No. 1286. J. Binney, King’s Weigh-House Chapel Sermons, p. 218. I. 22, 23. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iv. p. 200. I. 23. C. Perren, Revival Sermon in Outlines, p. 260.
Security and Glory
Jud 1:24-25
I. The first thought for our consideration is God’s provision for our security and glory. ‘Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling.’ The more accurate translation, which you will find in the revised version of the New Testament: ‘To guard you from stumbling.’ The word here translated ‘keep’ is a strong word. It is even impregnated with a strong military flavour, and suggests the picture of an armed force. In the centre stands one whose life is threatened by fierce and hostile bands, but by his side stands an invincible Warrior pledged to protect him from all evil. ‘To guard you from stumbling.’ That does not mean that we can expect at present to be guarded in such a way that we shall be absolutely sinless. The stumbling here spoken of is akin to falling, and marks failure of a very grievous type. It is such a stumble as leaves our life halt and maimed, takes the power out of us, and renders us a prey to the evil one. Such stumbling as this God can save us from. The exercise of this power depends on the human response to it. ‘He is able.’ Why then are there some that stumble? Not because God’s power is deficient, but because they withdraw themselves outside the circle of His power. ‘And to make you stand before the presence of His glory faultless in exceeding joy.’ The word translated ‘blameless’ does not necessarily mean ‘without sin’. It is sometimes used in the Scriptures of men that are true and pure in heart, though there may be defects in the details of their life and conduct. But in its present position it can mean nothing but ‘sinlessness’. II. The passage next introduces us to the fundamental petition of this guarded and glorified life. ‘Unto Him the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion and power.’ (1) This ascription of glory is not made to God simply as God, the Creator of heaven and earth. It is to God our Saviour that Jude invites us to sing. (2) ‘Glory!’ that is the infinite essential perfection of God, God as He is in His own eternal brightness, in the glory of His person and His essential nature. (3) ‘Dominion!’ The word here translated ‘dominion’ means ‘power over’. (4) ‘And power!’ The word here translated power means the power that belongs to rightful authority. Of course in a certain sense, glory and majesty, dominion and power belong to God already. But in another sense, they are not fully realised until they are loyally acknowledged from one end of the universe to the other, until every soul joins in the praise, and God is glorified by all His creatures.
John Thomas, Myrtle Street Pulpit, vol. III. p. 145.
References. I. 24, 25. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi. No. 634; vol. xxxix. No. 2296; and vol. lii. No. 2994. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Jude, p. 105.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Infinite Love
Jud 1:21
In the first verse we read, “Beloved in God the Father” (R.V.), or, keeping the preposition as we find it, “Beloved by God the Father.” Then the exhortation “Keep yourselves in the love of God,” often read thus: Keep on loving God, watch the state of your affections; be very careful not to relax the grasp of your love as it lays hold upon God. That is not the meaning of the text: Keep yourselves in the fact that God loves you, not in the fickle circumstance that you love God. The distinction is vital, the distinction is infinitely consolatory, the distinction is what we need every day to keep us right and to give us peace. Men cannot be lectured into love. Jude is not telling us to be very careful about our love; for then we should be mechanicians, artisans, interested in keeping our love bright and pure, and in an interesting state, so as to attract the Divine complacency that fickle feeling that rules the universe so waywardly. This would be impossible and absurd. Yet this is the ruin of the Church; this it is that brings so many weaklings to profess Christianity. They are always complaining about themselves, as who should say, My love is weak and feeble, and I am afraid I am not in the right way; my heart misgives me when I think of my relation to God and eternity. That is blasphemy. Your relation means nothing, except in a very secondary and remote sense. What is God’s relation to you? God does not change. The one thing you have to be certain of at the beginning is that God loves you, then leave it. We have had far too much self-analysis, personal vivisection, taking, so to say, the soul to pieces, fibre by fibre, and filament by filament, to see how it is getting on. We have forgotten that we have to keep or guard ourselves by God’s love to us. His is an unchanging love.
What is the consequence of forgetting this simple but vital truth? The consequence is that we have an atmospheric piety: a west wind makes us buoyant in the faith, an east wind plunges us into dejection and covers us with a cloud of fear, wherein we say, The Lord hath forgotten to be gracious, and we seriously think of withdrawing from the Church. No man who belongs to the Church can withdraw from it. Certain men have crept in unawares, crawled in by the interstices, oozed in through the doors when they did not closely fit, crept in in the gloaming before the lamps were lighted: they will go out again; they would leave heaven if they could get into it; they do not belong to celestial quality or society, and they would soon discover the discrepancy between themselves and their circumstances, and they would first endeavour to create an insurrection, and secondly endeavour to creep out more humbly than they crept in. The consequence is that we have a stomachic piety; the question becomes, How is your digestion to-day? Given a good digestion, and we shall have a good creed, and a good hope through anything but grace of acceptance: given an ill-working digestion, and we shall have fears and complaints, and sink into poor creatures and miserable sinners and unworthy worms. That is stomachic. It is not intellectual, it is not moral; there is no point of intelligence in it: these be thy worshippers, O dyspepsia! The consequence is that we have a circumstantial piety. Given an abundant harvest, and we stand up for the creeds one and all, for nine-and-thirty articles, and nine-and-thirty thousand articles if anybody cares to write them: the table is spread plentifully, the vineyard blushes with purple, the herd in the stall is abundant, and as for the fig tree, it droopeth, so heavy is the fruitage; now we shall have song and psalm, now the Church will be uppermost, and Christian fellowship will be sweet, being but another aspect of personal covetousness and personal vanity. The true religion is that which continues to sing its psalm as cheerily in the winter as in the summer, as cheerily when there is no herd in the stall as when their owner can hardly count the cattle upon his hills, and worth gold untold: Though the fig tree shall not blossom I will joy, yea, I will rejoice in God who is my salvation. As if the prophet had said, Mine is not a circumstantial piety, depending altogether upon my business returns, my agricultural success, my social promotion and standing: I believe in God, I guard myself in the love of God. That distinction has often saved a soul from death. Said a young man to one of the greatest Anglican ecclesiastics of this century, “I feel, Mr. Maurice, as if I had lost my love to God.” “That may be, but God has not lost his love for you,” was the reply. That saved the man.
We start the argument from the wrong point. A man of learning says he has been obliged after long studies to surrender certain points in the Christian faith, and inquires what he is to do. He must throw away his long studies; he is working from the wrong point: it is as if he had taken out a ladder, saying, I am in search of the stars. We cannot get at the stars by a ladder, we get at them through a telescope, and the telescope must be the heart, love, trust, childlikeness, the very spirit of self-renunciation and self-disgust. The secret of the Lord is with hem that fear him: he will do nothing in the city without telling his servant: Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God: Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. A man who goes forth to keep himself right by what he terms “fact and logic” the two great murderers of souls will come home at eventide weary, disappointed, and full of shame. There is nothing so small as “fact”; there is nothing so detestably mean and irresponsive as what is called “logic,” the little, narrow, syllogistic logic that is not reasoning at all, that lights a match that it may study the universe. We must get rid of this self-analysis and vivisection and pious consideration of what we are doing within: our creed must be I believe God. Guard yourselves in God’s love to you. Then the Church will become healthy. We have times of trial: what is to be our answer to all the mysteries of probation that tear us and wound us and grieve us? What reply have we to the sharp-toothed tribulum that tears part from part of our nature? We must not offer in reply our own steadfastness, our own evidences of acceptance, or our own anything: we must oppose to all trial the love that God has for us in Christ Jesus. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? In that God hath given us his Son he means to win, he means to complete the work he has begun, he means that he will never erect a pillar and leave it without a capital. Guard yourselves in God’s love for you, as shown in providence, as shown in the Cross, as shown in spiritual ministries operating upon mind and heart and thought. Entrench yourselves behind the fortress of the infinite love. In times of mystery what are we to do? Nothing is so easy as cloud-making. The enemy always tries the evil, easy, little task of asking questions, suggesting doubts, conducting processes of cross-examination; his only object being to bewilder the mind and distract the attention and unsettle the soul. There are mysteries enough to cover any heaven we ever looked upon, and to trouble the whole earth with long-continued night: what have we to do with mysteries? Nothing. Then what have we to do with? Only with God’s love to us. If we doubt that, then the whole life falls; if our doubts relate to God’s sovereignty, God’s fatherhood, God’s redemption of the world through his only begotten Son, then there is no answer to us even in God; we do not belong to God, we are ungodly, non-godly, anti-godly; we have sinned against the Holy Ghost. In mysteries we rest on God. In all controversy we take no part. Controversy never does any good when it relates to the supreme subjects. It is useful in commerce, it is useful in politics, it is useful in intellectual education; we must discuss, if we would come to broad and generous conclusions, all matters that come within the sphere of our understanding, and that can be handled by trained fingers: but controversies that relate to eternity, the infinite, the Deity, we have no part or lot in them: we know nothing: what little we do know in practical directions is only in part. Our prophecy therefore should be in part only, and our expectation should be wide as heaven, and more lasting than time.
Are we then conducted to a condition of indolence? Are we invited by Jude to stand still, to do nothing, to throw ourselves simply in wise and tender contemplation upon God’s eternal Fatherhood, and let all the rest take care of itself? No baser interpretation could be put upon a good man’s words. Jude will not give us the comfort unless we attend to the exhortation, “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, guard yourselves in the love of God”; build, then rest; edify yourselves in the faith, and then leave all consequences; be industrious, and you shall be blessed; attend to responsibility, and God will do the rest: he will never leave you nor forsake you. We have to proceed upon a policy of increase. ” building” is adding, raising up, strengthening foundations that they may carry the whole superstructure with ease. Our business therefore is practical, not sentimental; not to be examining ourselves, but putting ourselves out to work; not sitting at home, saying, I wonder if I am worthy to go out to-day and plough the field. You have been suffering from poisoned air, you are not yet fully awake, you are half-dazed: go out into the fresh wind, seize the plough with both hands, and the rest will come; your blood will answer the appeal of the fresh air and the sunlight, and you will come back with the hunger that is the beginning of satisfaction. We die for want of fresh air and for want of activity. No worker ever complains; he has no time to complain: he has to find food for a dozen mouths; fifty little children are waiting for him and cannot go to bed until he has found them their supper, and he will go and find it: and will you suspect that man on the road wondering if after all he is accepted? No! When he goes on these errands he never takes the devil with him. But your over-fed and over-salaried Christian, and the man who has to pull down his barns and build greater, often wonders whether after all——, and then he is thought to be very humble, and though so wealthy yet so pious it is a lie! He has his own idol, he is operating on the base of his own love; he wonders how far he is attracting the notice of God: whereas real, healthy, deep, eternal life in Christ says, God loves me, God stooped to die for me in the person of his Son, God has given me every pledge of his love: now what I have to do is to build, to edify, to grow higher and higher, to pray more boldly, and to live the life of faith, not to whine the sentiment of doubt. That would reduce the numbers of the Church, you suggest? So it would, thank God! We do not live in numbers, we live in quality. There are those who are ruining, so far as man can ruin, the Church, not by argument or doubt or controversy or high intellectual ambitious thinking, but by representing to the world that a new responsibility has been incurred, the responsibility of keeping the garden of the heart, and watching it lest there should be a single weed within the enclosure. That is selfishness. On the other hand, if our assurance and absolute certainty in the love of God leads us to say, “Now I must live a life corresponding to that assurance,” then all is well; it is thus that the balance is wrought out. We do not warm God into greater complacency, for he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to die for it: we have not therefore to warm the Lord into some higher temperature of love, we have to work so as to redress the balance on our side. No man can have the assurance that God loves him, and yet be idle: if he be idle he destroys the assurance. The sophism is that he should look to himself first, and then to God afterwards, as if his sole business was to please God: whereas God has loved us, died for us, sent his Son to save us, and his Spirit to regenerate and sanctify us: and believing these things we say, “Having then, dearly beloved, these promises, let us purify ourselves.” Thus all self-attention comes from the highest motive, thus when we begin to examine ourselves we do so in the right light: not that we may please God when he comes on an unexpected visitation, but that we may answer God’s eternal love with trust, simplicity, and beneficence.
Note
“The Book of Enoch is one of the most important remains of that early apocalyptic literature of which the book of Daniel is the great prototype. From its vigorous style and wide range of speculation the book is well worthy of the attention which it received in the first ages; and recent investigations have still left many points for further inquiry.
“The history of the book is remarkable. The first trace of its existence is generally found in the Epistle of St. Jude (Jdg 14 , Jdg 15 ; cf. Enoch 1:9), but the words of the Apostle leave it uncertain whether he derived his quotation from tradition or from writing, though the wide spread of the book in the second century seems almost decisive in favour of the latter supposition.
“In its present shape the book consists of a series of revelations supposed to have been given to Enoch and Noah, which extend to the most varied aspects of nature and life, and are designed to offer a comprehensive vindication of the action of Providence. It is divided into five parts. The first part, after a general introduction, contains an account of the fall of the angels ( Gen 6:1 ) and of the judgment to come upon them and upon the giants, their offspring (6-16); and this is followed by the description of the journey of Enoch through the earth and lower heaven in company with an angel, who showed to him many of the great mysteries of nature, the treasure houses of the storms and winds, and fires of heaven, the prison of the fallen and the land of the blessed (17-36). The second part (37-71) is styled ‘a vision of wisdom,’ and consists of three ‘parables,’ in which Enoch relates the revelations of the higher secrets of heaven and of the spiritual world which were given to him. The first parable (38-44) gives chiefly a picture of the future blessings and manifestation of the righteous, with further details as to the heavenly bodies: the second (45-57) describes in splendid imagery the coming of Messiah and the results which it should work among ‘the elect’ and the gainsayers: the third (58-69) draws out at further length the blessedness of the ‘elect and holy,’ and the confusion and wretchedness of the sinful rulers of the world. The third part (72-82) is styled ‘the book of the course of the lights of heaven,’ and deals with the motions of the sun and moon, and the changes of the seasons; and with this the narrative of the journey of Enoch closes. The fourth part (83-91) is not distinguished by any special name, but contains the record of a dream which was granted to Enoch in his youth, in which he saw the history of the kingdoms of God and of the world up to the final establishment of the throne of Messiah. The fifth part (92-105) contains the last addresses of Enoch to his children, in which the teaching of the former chapters is made the ground-work of earnest exhortation. The signs which attended the birth of Noah are next noticed (106-7); and another short ‘writing of Enoch’ (108) forms the close to the whole book.” Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXVI
AN EXPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF JUDE
Jud 1:1-25
In the introduction to this letter we have found the author to be, not an apostle, as we see from Jud 1:17 of the letter itself, but to be Jude, the brother of James, a younger half brother of our Lord. And from its general agreement in subject matter with 2Pe 2 , and its evident reference to the Gnostic philosophy of the Lycus Valley, the probable conclusion was reached that it was addressed to Christian Jews of Asia Minor. And as there is no evidence in the Bible or out of it that this Jude, or any of the younger children of Joseph and Mary ever left the Holy Land, it was concluded that the letter was written from Jerusalem, and that it was written before the downfall of that city. Jerusalem was taken by Titus in A.D. 70, and this book was written probably A.D. 68. Indeed, the author regards the book of Jude as the latest book of New Testament literature, except the writings of John his three letters, his gospel and Revelation, which were all much later than other New Testament books.
The occasion and purpose of this letter, appear in Jud 1:3-4 : “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you, exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints, for there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
There are both the occasion and purpose of the letter. We distinguish between the occasion and the purpose in this way: Certain men, whose heresies come under two heads their denial of Jesus Christ and their turning of the grace of God unto lasciviousness, occasioned the letter. The purpose of the letter is an earnest exhortation to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.
We see from these two verses that Jude was already contemplating writing concerning the common salvation, but before he had put that general purpose into execution, the occasion arose that called upon him to write on a specific part of that common salvation.
Look at certain words in these verses: “The common salvation.” Just exactly what does he mean by that? The thought is that the salvation of the gospel is not local, provincial, or divergent, but like its universal gospel applies alike to all its subjects everywhere, whether in Judea, or in the land of the dispersion, and brings them into a common brotherhood. Jude’s expression, “our common salvation,” is in line with Paul’s expression, in his letter to Titus “our common faith.” Common salvation; common faith. That is, faith which lays hold on salvation is as common as the salvation itself. Saving faith is the same in Judea, in Samaria, and in the uttermost parts of the earth. That is what is meant by common salvation and by common faith. He says that the purpose of his book is to urge that they shall contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints, which is strictly in line with the preceding thought about the common salvation. As to be saved means the same thing all over the world, and as faith which lays hold of that salvation is the same all over the world, so the faith, or the body of truth proclaimed by our Lord himself, and which was committed to his apostles as a deposit of truth, and which they in turn committed to the churches, is the same everywhere and always. It simply means that this body of doctrine so delivered, was all-sufficient for all time to come without addition or subtraction.
The question arises, where else in the New Testament is this idea of “the faith” as referring to the body or system of truth taught? In Paul’s letter to Timothy the same expression is used “the faith” as standing opposed to Gnosticism, and like Paul, Jude puts over against the teaching of the Gnostics “the faith,” the sacred deposit of truth. This faith, or the body of truth, he says, was delivered. It was not originated by man it was delivered. Paul says, “I have delivered unto you that which I also received,” and then he begins to give his summary. First, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; second, that he was buried; third, that he rose again the third day; fourth, that he was recognized as risen. And we find in Paul’s letters quite a number of the summaries of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
In his Gospel, Luke refers to the same thought. He was anxious for Theophilus to know of “the certainty of the things which are commonly believed among us.” One of the best books of modern times on this subject is Faith and The Faith, by T. T. Eaton. He distinguished rightly between faith as an act of the man taking hold of salvation, and THE faith, or body of truth that was delivered. Every preacher ought to carefully read Dr. Eaton’s little book. It is a fine discussion. What a great pity that all who claim to be Baptists in the United States do not read that little book.
I must call attention just here to the importance of this treble idea. Salvation is common; it is not different in England from what it is in France, nor in Egypt from what it is in Samaria, nor in any one part of the earth from what it is in any other part. In every part of the earth salvation is the same.
Second, the faith which takes hold of salvation, or the exercise of faith, is the same thing. A man does not become a Christian one way in Germany, and another way in France. Whenever and wherever a man is saved, there and then it is a common salvation, a common faith, “like precious faith.”
So the things preached in order to salvation are the same. The things to be preached, without any addition, without any subtraction, in their fullness or sufficiency, are the same. Whenever a man claims that he has a new truth to preach, we may know it is false. The truth was delivered once and for all to the saints, and if I never make any other impression than the impression concerning the common salvation and the common faith that lays hold of salvation, the common system of truth that is preached in order to salvation, that is a big lesson. I am hoping and praying continually that there shall never go out from our Seminary any heretic on any one of these three points.
Here a question arises: Would this mean that no new light is to break out of God’s Word? It does not mean that at IB. That old Puritan who entered the emigrant ship in Holland to come to the United States, struck fire from the rock when he said: “Brethren, there is yet more light to break out of God’s Word.” The light is there; it simply means that we have not yet seen all the light that is in there. It is not a new light, but it is newly discovered by the student. When I say, then, that a new truth is a falsehood, I do not mean that a new interpretation or perception of the truth is necessarily a falsehood. A thousand times since I began the study of the Bible new light has broken out of the gospel to me. We may let down our buckets into the well of salvation 10,000 times, and so may 10,000 people after we are gone, and yet every man may draw up fresh water from the inexhaustible springs of joy in the Word of God. But we do not want any more additions, nor to retire any part as obsolete.
We recur to the occasion of Jude’s letter. Those men in the Lycus Valley (it really came from one man, but it spread until it threatened the gospel of Jesus Christ more than any other error that has ever been preached in the world, and it is yet alive), commenced first by trying to account for the universe, and in accounting for the universe, they discounted Christ’s part in the universe. They took the position that God would not concern himself with such a thing as matter, and therefore he must shade himself down to eons, low enough to touch matter, that Jesus was one of the lowest emanations from God. This necessarily reflected upon Jesus Christ, as the Creator of the world, and hence all the later letters of the Bible bear on the person of Christ, and on the offices of Christ against this heresy.
They taught that sin resided in matter, that the soul or spirit could not sin, that the escape of the soul from the body at death, or the quickening of the soul in regeneration was the resurrection. There was no salvation for the body, and inasmuch as the body returned to nothingness when the soul was raised from it, therefore it was immaterial what you did in the body. Hence the turning of the grace of God into lasciviousness. It was a teaching of impurity, and the most beastly, brutish kind that the world has ever known.
The question arises: How could such men get into the church? And Jude answers: “Certain men crept in privily.” They did not unmask themselves when they joined the church. They joined the church, but they were not converted men, and they kept secret their real belief. They were the worst of all hypocrites, and having crept in privily, as Jude says, they taught privily. The gospel is daylight work; we preach it on the housetops. These people who sneaked into the church, sneaked in their teaching. They would not dare come up before a public congregation and teach that lust, adultery, disregard of woman’s honor, and the sanctity of the family were harmless matters. They would not dare to teach that openly, but they would teach it privily.
The next thing in this heresy was its motive. Its motive was gain. Peter says they followed the way of Balaam, and Jude repeats that statement, “for the wages of unrighteousness.” How could they make a gain out of such teachings? They could not do it publicly; men would not pay money for that sort of public instruction. They would go around to people privily and say, “Here, it is respectable for you to belong to the church; we do not want you to quit. But there is no need for you to attend its services. You may forsake the assemblies, but you should belong to a special inner class who know more than the uncultured masses. Let the plowmen and slaves, the common people, respect all these details, but advanced people do not need any such doctrine as that. Pay us so much, and we will initiate you secretly.” So there would be separation of classes in the church, but not withdrawals separations in the body of the church, one class distinguished from another class.
When Jude understood this he saw that the only remedy was to “contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints.” “You must not let these people sidetrack you from the person and offices of our Lord Jesus Christ. You must not let them creep into your home; you must hold on to the truth of God.” Like Peter, he cites three historical examples to show that no matter how secretly a man may work, God brings sure and condign punishment upon the wicked. Who teaches a heresy does a moral wrong. “I put you in remembrance that ye know these things, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” He had saved that nation, and yet out of the great body of men able to bear arms, 600,000 that left Egypt, only two of them got to the Promised Land. Why? God destroyed those that believed not. They were willing enough to observe the ritual of religion, willing enough to offer the sacrifices, but were not willing to live the religion. They did not want God to rule in the heart, the imagination, in the life, and hence they were unbelievers, and every one of them died under the judgment of God. When the providence of God executes a half million men for violation of his law, the violation coming through their unbelieving, then these Gnostic teachers certainly may not expect to escape.
The next case that he cites-is this: “And the angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Here Jude tells us of the fall of the angels and the question naturally comes up: How many falls of the angels have there been? Does this refer to the time when Satan, through pride, fell, and certain of the angels followed him, and are called his angels from that time, or his demons? Or has there been since that time two other falls of the angels besides that? There certainly would be a second fall if that variant Septuagint rendering is true, that angels cohabitating with women brought about the flood. That would be a second fall. Then if Nephelim means angels there was a third fall, after the flood. Is this true? Jude refers to only one fall of the angels. He says “they left their proper habitation, kept not their own principalities.” In other words, there is an hierarchy among the angels. They had their place in heaven, each one or each class having its principality and powers. Certain angels did not keep their principality, but left their proper habitation and followed the devil in that great rebellion. That is every thing that Jude says about the angels. We would be curious to know how then some contend that Jude charges that Gen 6:4 teaches the cohabitation of angels with women, as the occasion of their fall. We find the basis of their contention in verse 7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these . . .” Look at that word, “these.” There is our word what is its antecedent? The radical higher critics say the antecedent is “angels” in the preceding verse, and they read it this way: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about having in like manner with these angels given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh.” Toutois, that Greek pronoun, what is its antecedent? Many commentators think that the antecedent of “these” is the angels that kept not their first estate, and therefore that Jude teaches that the angels committed the same offense that is attributed to Sodom and Gomorrah. And they cite some manuscript of the Septuagint which translates “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 by “angels.”
In reply I give my discussion on this subject. There I raised the question: What caused the deluge? The discussion cites two evil theories of the cause of the deluge. The first evil theory answers that the Adamites, or the white race, were guilty of miscegenation with Negroes, the pre-Adamite race. In favor of that evil theory, there is a book circulating all over Texas. I knew personally the writer. But with that first theory we have nothing to do now. The second evil theory gives at) the cause of the deluge miscegenation between angels and women-. According to this theory the sons of God, angels, married the daughters of men because they were fair, and the scriptural arguments on which that theory rests are these: First, the angels in the Bible are often called the sons of God. Second, some manuscripts of the Septuagint have angels in the context of Gen 6:4 , and instead of reading “the sons of God took to themselves wives of the daughters of men because they were fair,” read: “the angels of God, etc.” Just here I call attention to the fact that the Septuagint was not made the Genesis part of it until about 200 years before Christ, long after the Old Testament revelations had ceased, and the Jews had come in contact with heathen nations where old legends were full of examples of cohabitation between men and goddesses, and gods and women, and that is where the idea originated it came from the heathen.
Their second argument claims that Jud 1:6-7 of Jude show that the sin of the angels was giving themselves over to strange flesh. That the monstrous men, the Nephilim, of Gen 6:4 were angels. The monstrous character of the offspring from this unnatural cohabitation is cited in support of the theory. See the latter clause of Gen 6:4 , and also a recent work of fiction, Man of Seraph. My reply to that, is as follows:
1. It is conceded that sometimes in the Scriptures angels are called the “sons of God,” but never in Genesis.
2. The rendering, “angels,” instead of “sons of God” in some Septuagint manuscripts is not a translation of the Hebrew, but an Alexandrian interpretation substituted for the original.
3. The whole argument in Jude is based upon the assumption that the pronoun, “these,” in Jud 1:7 has for its antecedent the noun, “angels,” in Jud 1:6 , though a nearer antecedent may be found in Jud 1:7 , namely, “Sodom and Gomorrah.” With this nearer antecedent, Jud 1:7 would read: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, with these,” i.e., with Sodom and Gomorrah, not with the angels. Moreover, the offense in Jud 1:7 is not the offense in Gen 6:2 . The latter is marriage legal marriage.
4. “Nephilim,” or “giants,” neither here nor in Num 13:33 means angels. This would be to have another offense of the angels after the flood.
5. The offspring of the ill-assorted marriage in Gen 6:4 are not monsters in the sense of prodigies resulting from cross of species, but “mighty men,” men of renown.
6. “Sons of God” means the Sethites, or Christians, men indeed by natural generation, but sons of God by regeneration. In Gen 4:26 , directly connected with this scripture, we have the origin of the name: “Then began men to be called by the name of the Lord.” This designation of Christians is common in both Testaments. I cite particularly Psa 82:6-7 , where we have precisely the same contrast between the regenerate and the unregenerate as in the text here. “All of you are sons of the most high. Nevertheless, ye shall die like men.”
7. The inviolable law of reproduction within the limits of species “after their kind” forbids unnatural interpretation of this second theory.
8. According to our Lord himself the angels are sexless, without human passion, neither marrying nor giving in marriage (Luk 20:35 ).
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities, about them, having in like manner with these,” that is, Sodom and Gomorrah. There were three other cities at least three of them are named in the Bible. Once when I took this position my critic said, “But you see, the gender of toutois does not agree with Sodom and Gomorrah. Angels are masculine so is toutois . Sodom and Gomorrah are neuter. They cannot agree.” My reply was toutois , dative plural of toutos , is either masculine or neuter. So the objection fails. Why should I run over a near-by antecedent, and hook it on to one in the preceding verse? I do not expect radical critics to accept my judgment on the antecedent of toutois , but I stand on it. In the case of two possible antecedents, both grammatically possible, I select the nearer one, which harmonizes all the Bible teaching, rather than the more distant one which contradicts the whole trend of Bible teaching. The scripture must be interpreted in harmony with itself where possible. That nearer and better antecedent does harmonize with all other scriptures. Moreover, Jude has already specified the sin of the fallen angels and has nothing more to say about them. Their sin was “they kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation.” There is no hint of “cohabitation with women.”
The Bible knows nothing of several falls of the angels, but only one. We must do one of two things: Either reject this theory which makes Jude teach the cohabitation of angels with women, or reject the inspiration of the book. Both cannot stand.
Jude’s third historical example is the doom of Sodom and Gomorrah, on account of unnatural sins. They are set forth as an example of eternal fire, that is, not eternal fire, but a shadow looking to or presaging eternal fire, as the valley of Tophet suggests, in a figure, eternal fire. Jesus says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment than for the cities which heard and rejected him, indicating that the punishment passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah was not the worst punishment man could receive.
In verse 8, “Yet in like manner these,” we come to that pronoun again. What “these” is this? It is the teachers of evil in Jud 1:4 who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. “These in their dreaming defile the flesh, and set at naught dominion, and rail at dignities.” Three things defile the flesh, set at naught government, rail at dignities.
We now come to another strange thing in Jude. It is alleged that Jud 1:9 teaches that Jude quotes from an apocryphal book called “The Assumption of Moses.” One of the fathers held that Jude got this idea of the contention of Michael and the devil from “The Assumption of Moses.” The book is not extant now nobody living now has ever seen a copy of it, but there are some allusions in writers after apostolic days to such a book. These vague allusions accredit this apocryphal book as teaching that Moses did not die as other men die, or at least was not allowed to see corruption; that his body without corruption was taken up to heaven like Elijah’s body. That is the alleged assumption of Moses which is exactly what some Romanists teach about the virgin Mary. They teach that Mary never died, that she never saw corruption, and that her body was glorified and taken up into heaven. “The Assumption of Mary” means just that. It is one of their Romanist doctrines. But the Bible says nothing about either assumption except to flatly contradict both in its general teachings.
But “Michael, the Archangel,” who was he? The name appears first in Dan 10:21 ; Dan 12:1 where he is called the prince or guardian angel of the Jewish nation. Archangel means chief or captain of the angels. The name reappears in the book of Revelation (Rev 12:7-9 ), where as leader of the unfallen angels he wars with and conquers Satan and his angels. In a previous discussion I have called your attention to this distinction between Michael and Gabriel whenever there is a fight on hand, Michael is sent; whenever it is a mission of mercy, Gabriel is sent. Michael is the fighter. He is the leader, the archangel, the chief angel.
Two questions naturally arise: What was the difficulty between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses, and how did Jude know about it? For there is no reference in the Old Testament to a fight between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses.
Taking the second question first, to wit: In the absence of Old Testament light, from what source came Jude’s information? A large class of commentators refuse to consider any source of information but some Jewish tradition. ‘Hinc illae lachrymae : Hence their trouble in two directions:
1. Which one of the many Jewish traditions? For there are many prior to the late apocryphal book, called “The Assumption of Moses,” some of them very silly, some beautiful in thought.
2. Where does this reliance on and endorsement of variant and uninspired tradition land Jude?
My answer is, Jude’s information came from inspiration the same source from which many other New Testament references come, not given in Old Testament. For example, Paul’s giving the names, Jannes and Jambres, to the Egyptian priests who opposed Moses (2Ti 3:8 ). Does inspiration fall unless buttressed by tradition? Why should I assume the unnecessary burden of verifying Scripture by Jewish legend? One of the great offices of inspiration is to guide in the selection of material and to bring to remembrance. It is a characteristic of inspiration that it brings to mind unrecorded things of the past. Jesus speaks of unrecorded things; Stephen does the same. So does Paul. Why not Jude?
This leaves unanswered the other question, What the contention between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses? I don’t know. In the absence of scriptural light on it I cannot say. There was a contention we know, just what we may modestly suggest as possible or even probable, but may not affirm.
God himself, according to the record, buried Moses when he died and no man knoweth just where the place of burial. For some wise purpose, not disclosed, God kept that place of sepulture hidden from men. It possibly may have been his purpose to forestall Jewish pilgrimages to the place which might result in deifying Moses. There is a tendency to worship relics. These Jews did worship the brazen serpent until Hezekiah broke it to pieces saying Nehushtan, i.e., “It is only a piece of brass.” Romanists today worship relics. Europe went crazy to rescue the empty tomb of Jesus. Knowing this superstitious trend in man, and desiring to minister to it, Satan may have attempted to locate the buried body of Moses and was successfully resisted by Michael, the guardian angel of the Jewish people.
Or, as Moses had sinned, and died, Satan who has the power of death, may have claimed the death-stricken body as his, which Michael resisted, because it was the body of a redeemed man, committed to him till God would raise and glorify it. He would put his brand on all the bodies of the saints except for the fact that “they sleep in Jesus” and are angel-guarded until the resurrection. I repeat: Moses sinned; Moses as a sinner died. The devil has the power of death. But because his people were partakers of flesh and blood Jesus partook of the same, that he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. I have the picture in my mind this way that when Moses died the devil claimed the body “that is mine; he is dead.”
Wherever there is death, though we may not see him, and our friends may not see him, yet he, Satan, is there. He will be in the room when we die, and if we die out of Christ he will claim our body.
But when he went to claim the body of Moses, Michael met him: “You cannot touch the body of a son of God. That is in the keeping of the angels of God until it is raised from the dead.” It is certainly a beautiful thought.
Or, yet again, by the body of Moses may be understood his institutions. So, after the downfall of the Jewish monarchy, Satan resisted the restoration and re-establishment of the hierarchy under Joshua, the high priest and Zerubbabel, but was rebuked of the Lord. This supposition has this merit: There is an Old Testament record of its containing the very words which Jude quotes: “The Lord rebuke thee.” (See Zec 3:1-2 ).
Consider next Jud 1:11 , the woe pronounced on a threefold sin. “Woe unto them I For they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsayings of Korah.” What the way of Cain, the error of Balaam, the gainsayings of Korah? These three sins are distinct in class, but all heinous. Cain’s way was to reject an expiatory gin offering. Willing enough was he to offer thank offerings, but not sin offerings. He denied the need of atonement. Thousands today walk in his way. Balaam’s error was to suggest to Balak a way by which Israel could be separated from God, for until separated they could not be cursed. He suggested that they be corrupted and so alienated from God, through the women of the idolaters. He knew this counsel was evil, but offered for hire the wages of unrighteousness. Thousands today go astray from the same motive. Korah’s gainsaying was rebellion against properly constituted authority. God himself had given Aaron and Moses their authority. Korah railed at them as no better than himself. This Lycus Valley heresy partook of all these sins: blasphemy, infidelity, impurity, anarchy, and covetousness.
Jud 1:12 : “These are they that are hidden rocks in your love feasts” agapae , that is the only place in the Bible where that word occurs. But in 2Pe 2 we find feasts not love feasts. Now a word on those love feasts, of which so much is written in ecclesiastical history. In Act 2 it is evident there is a distinction between the Lord’s Supper and the ordinary meal of the Christians. The Lord’s Supper is in Act 2:42 , “breaking of bread” – “they ate their meat from house to house with gladness of heart,” the common meal Act 2:46 ). In Act 6 there is evidence of a common fund out of which the majority of the disciples at that big meeting were fed. That money was provided by the richer class; that is, they bought the provisions for the daily ministration. In the letter to Corinthians, there is evidence of a common meal at which some ate like gluttons and drank like drunkards. That is not the Lord’s Supper at all, but the fact remains that they confused these feasts with the Lord’s Supper. Peter says that they had these feasts. Jude alone gives the name love feasts. The author dissents from the published views of Norman Fox. The Lord’s Supper was one thing these feasts were charity feasts. And in those countries where many of the congregation were slaves and poor people, they were marvelous acts of charity real love feasts, until perverted. The Methodists have experience meetings which they call “love feasts” not food for the body, but food for the soul.
Jude says, “these heretics are hidden rocks in your love feasts.” Any man who comes to a Christian love feast having eyes full of lust is a hidden rock in that love feast: “Shemherds that without fear feed themselves”; “clouds without water carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; wild waves of the sea foaming out their own shame.” These vivid illustrations show that this man had rare descriptive powers.
The last thing that I call your attention to is in Jud 1:14 : “And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord came with ten thousand of his holy ones [that is past tense but prophetic future] to execute judgment upon all, and convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” This is claimed to be a direct quotation from the Apocryphal book of Enoch. What about that book?
About three years before the Revolutionary War the book of Enoch was found. It was translated into the Coptic language, and three years before I was born it was translated into English. I have a copy in English. So from 1773 to the present the modern world has had the book. There are references to such a book that extend back to the third century, but none of them go back as far as Jude goes, and there is no historical evidence as to when the book was written, but the statements in the book show to my mind as clear as a sunbeam that it was written after Jude was written. It was written by a Jew, and the Jew, whoever he was, was either a Christian, or was so imbued with the ideas of the Messiah and of the general judgment as taught in New Testament, that the Jews rejected the book and won’t claim it. In no Old Testament book is there such a vivid description of the general judgment. Its judgment ideas and Messiah ideas are borrowed from New Testament writers. One sentence only in the book of Enoch to some extent parallels Jude (Jud 1:14-15 ). The last clause of Jud 1:15 is not in the book of Enoch, to wit: “and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” The question is: Which quoted from the other? If indeed either quoted from the other. There is no historical evidence whatever that the author of the book of Enoch wrote before Jude. The development of late Jewish ideas on angels, on the judgment, on the Messiah found in the book of Enoch, all point to postapostolic times. There was much similar Jewish literature after the apostolic days.
The author believes that Jude was written before the book of Enoch. It is quite probable that whoever wrote the book of Enoch got his conception from Jude and not Jude from the other. Some say that this book was written at different times by different authors that the first part of it was written about seventy years before Christ, and the latter part was written in the middle of the second century. While they bring no historical evidence, they base their idea upon their internal criticism. The author has little respect for the assumed power of higher critics to dissect a book, relegating its fragments to different authors and different ages. Their exploits on many Old Testament books and on 1 Corinthians do not incline him to accord them the infallibility they assume in partitioning books.
Before we concede that Jude quoted from that book let us wait until they prove when that book was written. Where then did Jude get his information that Enoch prophesied? He got it from the same source that informed Peter that Noah was a preacher and of Lot’s state of mind in regard to the iniquities of the Sodomites and informed Paul of the names of the Egyptian magicians from inspiration.
The other matters in this letter are not difficult of interpretation.
QUESTIONS
1. What the occasion of the letter?
2. What its purpose?
3. Explain “common salvation.”
4. Explain Paul’s “common faith.”
5. Explain Jude’s “The faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
6. Combine the three ideas and show their importance as related.
7. Cite other New Testament references to “the faith.”
8. Who wrote a valuable book. Faith and The Faith?
9. What the teachings of the heretics against whom Jude writes?
10. What three historical examples showing that God punishes heresies and sins?
11. What the sin of the angels as given by Jude expressly?
12. Give the argument against “The sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 , meaning angels.
13. When was the Septuagint translation made?
14. What the rendering of “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 in some Septuagint manuscripts?
15. From whom did the later Jews get their idea of heavenly beings mating with human beings?
16. What the antecedent of the pronoun “these,” Greek toutois, m Jud 1:7 ?
17. In what books of the Bible appears the name of Michael, and how do the Scriptures distinguish his mission from Gabriel’s?
18. What three possible explanations of the contention for the body of Moses, and which, if any, do you prefer?
19. Distinguish between the sins of Gain, Balaam, and Korah.
20. Distinguish between the Lord’s Supper and love feasts.
21. What do you know of the Apocryphal book of Enoch?
22. What one sentence of that book parallels Jud 1:14 and the first clause of Jud 1:15 ?
23. Is there any historical evidence of the date of the writing of this book?
24. Was there a considerable Jewish post-apostolic literature similar to this book?
25. What things in this book point to a post-apostolic date of composition?
26. Why is it probable that its author quoted from Jude?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1, 2 .] Address and greeting . Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ ( , probably not here in the wider sense, in which all Christians are servants of Christ but in that special sense in which those were bound to His service who were employed in the preaching and disseminating of His word: see reff.: on the absence of any official designation, see prolegomena), and brother of James (see prolegomena), to the called (in the sense of St. Paul (reff.); effectually drawn by God the Father to the knowledge of the Gospel), beloved in (the phrase is one not elsewhere found, and difficult of interpretation. The meanings “ by ,” = , cf. 2Th 2:13 , ; “ on account of ,” understanding “beloved by the writer ,” are hardly admissible. The only allowable sense of seems to be, “in the case of,” “as regards,” understanding of course that the love of the Father is spoken of) God the Father (St. Paul ordinarily in his greetings adds to , cf. Rom 1:7 ; 1Co 1:3 ; 2Co 1:2 ; Eph 1:2 ; Phi 1:2 ; Col 1:2 ; 2Th 1:1 ; Phm 1:3 . But he has absolutely in the following places; Gal 1:1-2 ; Eph 6:23 ; Php 2:11 ; 2Th 1:2 ; 1Ti 1:2 ; 2Ti 1:2 ; Tit 1:4 ; as also St. Peter, 1Pe 1:2 ; 2Pe 1:17 ; St. John, 2Jn 1:3 . It became more frequently used, as might be expected, in the later days of the canon) and kept for Jesus Christ (reserved, to be His at the day of His coming: the dative is commodi. If the question be asked, kept by whom? the answer must be, by God the Father: though constructionally the words are not connected. Observe the perfect participles, giving the signification “from of old and still”): mercy to you and peace and love be multiplied (all three proceeding from God: God’s mercy, God’s peace, God’s love: see Jud 1:21 . In the somewhat similar passage, Eph 6:23 , . . , the love and faith are clearly, in themselves, the gift of God: mutual love or love towards God. But the other seems better here).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Jud 1:1-2 . Salutation . Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who have received the divine calling, beloved of the Father, kept safe in Jesus Christ. May mercy, peace and love be richly poured out upon you!
1. . The same phrase is used by St. James in the Inscription to his epistle, also by St. Paul in Rom. and Phil. In 1 Pet. the phrase used is . ., in 2 Pet. . It is, I think, a mistake to translate by the word “slave,” the modern connotation of which is so different from that of the Greek word ( cf. 2Co 4:5 ). There is no opposition between and in the Christian’s willing service. It only becomes a in the opposed sense, when he ceases to love what is commanded and feels it as an external yoke.
. Cf. Tit 1:1 , . . See Introduction on the Author.
. On the readings see Introduction on the text. The easier reading of some MSS., for , is probably derived from 1Co 1:2 , . . There is no precise parallel either for . or for . The preposition is constantly used to express the relation in which believers stand to Christ: they are incorporated in Him as the branches in the vine, as the living stones in the spiritual temple, as the members in the body of which He is the head. So here, “beloved as members of Christ, reflecting back his glorious image “would be a natural und easy conception. Lightfoot, commenting on Col 3:12 , , , says that in the N.T. the last word “seems to be used always of the objects of God’s love,” but it is difficult to see the propriety of the phrase, ‘Brethren beloved by God in God”. is used of the objects of man’s love in Clem. Hom. ix. 5, , and the cognate is constantly used in the same sense (as below Jud 1:3 ), as well as in the sense of “beloved of God”. If, therefore, we are to retain the reading, I am disposed to interpret it as equivalent to , “beloved by us in the Father,” i.e. , “beloved with . as children of God,” but I think that Hort is right in considering that has shifted its place in the text. See his Select Readings , p. 106, where it is suggested that should be omitted before and inserted before , giving the sense “to those who have been beloved by the Father, and who have been kept safe in Jesus from the temptations to which others have succumbed,” being followed by a dative of the agent, as in Neh 13:26 , .
is here the substantive of which and are predicated. We find the same use in Rev 17:14 ( ) . . , in St. Paul’s epistles, as in Rom 1:6 , , , 1Co 1:24 , , . We have many examples of the Divine calling in the Gospels, as in the case of the Apostles (Mat 4:21 , Mar 1:20 ) and in the parables of the Great Supper and the Labourers in the Vineyard. This idea of calling or election is derived from the O.T. See Hort’s n. on 1Pe 1:1 : “Two great forms of election are spoken of in the O.T., the choosing of Israel, and the choosing of single Israelites, or bodies of Israelites, to perform certain functions for Israel. The calling and the choosing imply each other, the calling being the outward expression of the antecedent choosing, the act by which it begins to take effect. Both words emphatically mark the present state of the persons addressed as being due to the free agency of God. In Deuteronomy (Deu 4:37 ) the choosing, by God is ascribed to His own love of Israel: the ground of it lay in Himself, not in Israel. As is the election of the ruler or priest within Israel for the sake of Israel, such is the election of Israel for the sake of the whole human race. Such also, still more clearly and emphatically, is the election of the new Israel.” For a similar use of the word “call” in Isaiah, cf. ch. Isa 48:12 , Isa 43:1 ; Isa 43:7 . The chief distinction between the the “calling” of the old and of the new dispensation is that the former is rather expressive of dignity (“called by the name of God”), the latter of invitation; but the former appears also in the N.T. in such phrases as Jas 2:7 , and 1Pe 2:9 , , . The reason for St. Jude’s here characterising the called as beloved and kept, is because he has in his mind others who had been called, but had gone astray and incurred the wrath of God.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Jude Chapter 1
“Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are (not exactly, ‘sanctified,’ but) beloved.” This may surprise many who have been accustomed to the Authorised Version, but it is not a question of what we have been accustomed to, but of what God wrote. The Authorised Version is an admirable one. Our translators did not mistake the meaning of the Greek word in the text before them; but the text which they had was the common text, and this text is as faulty in its way as the common English Version. This text was transcribed by a number of different hands, and if the writing was not very clear there was always a tendency for the copyist to make mistakes.
I have had a deal of writing pass through my hands, but I hardly have seen any, where there is not some mistake made. Particularly when the writing is a copy of another, it is almost always so, and more particularly when the man whose thoughts and words are copied is above the common people. The way to find out the best Greek text is to go up to the oldest of all, and to compare the oldest of all with the different translations made in ancient times, and if these agree, then you have the right one. But they often disagree, and then comes the question, Which is right? Here the all important question is the guidance of the Spirit of God. We can never do without Him, and the way in which the Spirit of God leads persons who really are not only indwelt by Him, but led by Him, is, – does it express the current of the Epistle? Does it fall in with the line of the apostle’s writing?
Well, you see the word “sanctified” may be correct in itself, but the word here should be, “to those that are called, beloved,” etc. You observe that the word “called” occurs at the end of the verse. This word “called” is very emphatic. Then he describes them in two different ways. First, here, in the A.V., it is “sanctified,” but as now generally accepted by those who have studied the text fully, it is “beloved* in God the Father.” “In” is very often equivalent to (indeed, it is a stronger expression that) “by.” But I now give it literally, “beloved in God the Father.” I confess myself that not only is this reading the most ancient, the best approved by the highest witnesses that God has given to us of His word, but it is beautifully appropriate to the Epistle. The assurance of being “beloved in God the Father,” or “by God the Father,” comes into special value under two sets of circumstances. If I am a young man very young in the faith, when one is proving the persecution of the world, the hatred of men, Jews full of jealousy, the Gentiles full of scorn, and both animated by hatred against the Lord and those that are the Lord’s – what a comfort it is to know that I am beloved “in God the Father.” This is the way the apostle Paul addressed the Thessalonians as a company, the only one that he ever addressed in this way. They were experiencing persecution, not in a gradual way as most of the other assemblies had done, but from the very start, from their conversion. We know the apostle himself had to flee because of the persecution that had set in there. “These men that have turned the world upside down have come here also,” and a deadly set was made upon them, and so the apostle had to escape. The church there had to bear the brunt of it, and in the very first Epistle that Paul ever wrote, the First to the Thessalonians – that was his first inspired writing – you will find that such is the manner in which he describes them. “Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus to the assembly of Thessalonians in God [the] Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ” (1Th 2:1 ). And that this was studiously meant is shown by the same presentation of the truth in the opening verse of the Second Epistle, where we find there was still the persecution and the danger of their being shaken by that persecution and the error that had come in through false teachers taking advantage of it to pretend that “the day of the Lord” was actually on them, making out that this persecution was the beginning of that” day,” and so greatly alarming the young believers there.
* (beloved) AB and several cursives, all the Ancient Versions, Origen, etc. (sanctified) KLP etc.
Hence the apostle had to write a second letter to establish them clearly in the bright hope of Christ’s coming, and in the lower truth of the day of the Lord. Well, in that Second Epistle we have “Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus to the assembly of Thessalonians in God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ” (2Th 2:1 ). Now I conceive that the object of the Spirit of God there, by the apostle, was, that as they were so young and so exposed to such an assault upon themselves, which reminded the apostle of the assault which had been made upon himself and his friends, that they should be comforted by the reminder that they were “in God the Father.” What could harm them if this were the case? The apostle would not have ventured from himself to say such a thing. None upon earth would have done so. It was God Who inspired the apostle to let them know that wonderful comfort. There are many people who read this and do not get any comfort from it, because they do not apply it to themselves. They have no idea what it means. You will remember that John, writing in his First Epistle, separates the family of God into three classes – the fathers, young men and the babes (for I give the last word as it should be, literally). They are all “children” of God, but the babes are the young ones of the children of God. The young men are those that have grown up, and the fathers are those that are mature and well established in Christ. Well, it is to the babes – and this will help us to understand what I have been saying – he says, “I write unto you babes” (the proper full force of the word), “because ye have known the Father” (1Jn 2:13 ).
Well, so it is with this young assembly in Thessalonica. It is described by the Holy Ghost as being “in God [the] Father and in [the] Lord Jesus Christ.”
In Jude we have the other side. They are not young saints now. It is addressed to comparatively old saints. There might be young ones among them; there would be such, undoubtedly. But he is looking at them as having gone through a sea of trouble and difficulty, and he is preparing them for worse still. He, as it were, says things are not going to get better but worse, and it is to end in the actual appearing of the Lord in judgment, and what is more, the very kind of people who are to be the objects of the Lord’s judgment when He comes have crept into the church already. This is a very solemn thing, and it might be alarming unless people were well read and grounded in the truth, and in love. So, therefore, writing at a comparatively late time (not early as in the case of the Thessalonians, but late), Jude writes in these terms – “to them that are called.” You observe that I transpose that word, which is a little spoiled by the interpolation of the conjunction “and” before “called.” “To them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and preserved.” It is not exactly “preserved in.” It may be “by” or “for.” These are the two alternatives for that word. I do not see how it can be “in”; so that you see it little differs from what we read here. It brings in another idea, and it is perfectly true either way. We are preserved by Christ, and we are preserved for Christ. I have not made up my mind which of the two in this instance is right, because they cannot both be the intention of the Spirit of God. One must be right rather than the other, but I cannot say that my judgment is yet formed as to the choice of these two prepositions, whether it should be “preserved for Jesus Christ,” or “by” Jesus Christ, He being the great One that does keep us. But in either case, how beautifully it is suited to a time of extra danger, and of danger too that he was not warranted to say would pass! We say the storm rages now, but the sun will shine shortly. No; it is to be that blackness of darkness of evil which is now coming in among the professors of Christ to get denser and darker until the Lord comes in judgment on them.
Well, how sweet is the assurance, “beloved in God the Father, and preserved by (or for) Jesus Christ” (either way is full of brightness – and the Lord may give us to learn some day which of the two thoughts is His meaning). But there it is, and full of comfort and sweetness, and eminently suited to the circumstances portrayed in this Epistle beyond any Epistle in the New Testament – an Epistle that shows the departure of Christians, i.e., of professing Christians – of those who were once thought to be as good as any. Sometimes, the people who turn away are those that have been very bright. We should not be surprised at that. It is not always the best fruit that ripens most quickly. Sometimes the earliest becomes rotten very soon. This is often the case with those that seem so bright all at once.
I remember being struck with this in the case of a young woman in the Isle of Wight, some forty years ago. Charles Stanley, our dear brother, in his zeal for the gospel was somewhat in danger of fancying people were converted when they were not. At times of revival, people are often apt to slip in; their feelings are moved, they are quickly affected. According to the word in the Gospel, “they hear the word, and anon with joy receive it; yet have they no root in themselves, but endure for a while: for when trial or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they are offended” (Mat 13:20 , Mat 13:21 ); so that we ought not to be surprised. The young woman of whom I speak was employed in a shop, and I was brought to see her as one of these conversions. In a moment she assured me that the old man was all gone, “dead and buried,” and other such language she used. This would have been all very sweet had there been any real spiritual feeling; but she had merely caught the truth in her mind, at best.
Now, a real convert having confessed the truth of Christ for the first time, would be greatly tried by many things, failings, shortcomings, and the like. The soul of such a one would be greatly alarmed to think that, even after having received Christ, he found so little that answered to His love, so easily betrayed into levity or carelessness, or into haste of temper, and ever so many difficulties that a young believer is tried by. But the young woman of whom I have been speaking had no conscience about anything at all. All she had was merely an intellectual idea of the truth that seemed delightful to her, and, indeed, it is delightful. It is like those described in Heb 6:5 , they “have tasted the good word of God,” and there they are, “enlightened” by the great light of the gospel, without being truly born of God. There might be a powerful action of the Spirit of God, and there may be all this without being truly born of God. People who are really born of God are generally tried, and there is a great sense of sin, and they have to learn their powerlessness. All this is a very painful experience; and it is to this state that the comfort of the gospel applies the knowledge of entire forgiveness and clearance from all that we are; not only in spite of what we are, but because of what we are, because of all that God has given us – a new life where there is no sin. There never is anything like this true comfort except in those that have felt the need of it, and that sense of need is what goes along with conversion to God. The Old Testament saints were in that state; and they never got out of it. The New Testament saints began with conversion and came into blessing that was impossible with the law – because the mighty work of redemption was not done. But now it is done; and can we suppose it does not make an essential difference for a New Testament believer? Well! “if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” Here you have this invaluable comfort for those that have passed through such serious experiences and who have proved their own weakness in meeting it – the liability to be affected by appearances which come to nothing. Fair and smooth words where there is no reality at all – this is what is so trying. And the Epistle shows that people are going to get worse than this.
Jud 1:2 , Jud 1:3 .
Then (ver. 2) we have, “mercy unto you, and peace and love be multiplied.” This is the only place where mercy is wished to the saints generally. When writing to individuals, to Timothy and Titus for instance, the apostle says “Mercy,” but when to the saints generally, “Grace and peace.”
Why does Jude bring “mercy” in here? Because they deeply needed the comfort. An individual ought always to feel the deep need of mercy, especially in the face of danger, and also in the sense of personal unworthiness; and now Jude gives the comfort of it to all these saints because of their imminent danger. I do not know any saints more in danger than ourselves, because grace has given us to feel for Christ’s honour and name, and to have confidence in the scriptures as the word of God. We should not look at a single word in them as a dead letter. I do not suppose that there is a single person here present – brother or sister – that has a doubt of a single word that God has written. It would be difficult now-a-days to find yourself in such a company generally. People think inspiration is a very lively term, and that we must allow for the errors of those good men who wrote the Bible. What could we expect from such men even if learned? They judge by themselves, not by God, nor by the Holy Ghost. Many of these men have not, I think, abandoned Christianity; but they are darkened by the spirit of unbelief. The spirit of the present day is as bad or worse as in any age since the Lord died and rose. There is one thing that marks it, and, that is lawlessness. A want of respect for everything that is above self, and a determination to have one’s own way – that is lawlessness. I do not know anything worse. It is what will characterise the whole of Christendom. Now it works in individuals, and it also works largely in whole companies, but it will soon become the reigning spirit. And that is the distinctive name of the anti-christ, “the lawless one.” Christ was the Man of righteousness, Christ is the Man that gives everything its place according to God, and Christ is the One that gives God His place. As to everything and every person, He was the Man of righteousness; lawlessness has nothing but self as its great ambition, a fallen self – man fallen from God. The danger is great in the present day, and so it was when Jude wrote his Epistle. Therefore it is “mercy,” not only “peace and love,” but “mercy” be multiplied. It is a very emphatic word.
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints” (ver. 3). It is addressed to those that have learned the value of “the faith.” He does not refer to personal faith but to the deposit that the faith holds. It is the thing believed, not merely the spiritual power that believes the testimony. It is therefore called “the faith,” distinct from “faith.” When did that faith come? The Epistle to the Galatians shows us when faith came and redemption and the Holy Ghost. It is found in Gal 3:25 : “For after that faith is come.” “I live by the faith of the Son of God.”; “Received ye the Spirit by the hearing of faith?” is a distinct thing (Gal 2:20 ; Gal 3:2 ). “The scripture hath concluded all under sin” (Jews or Gentiles – the Jews under transgression, but all under sin) “that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came we were kept under law,” (Gal 3:22 , Gal 3:23 ). The law was there until the cross of Christ, but then it was affixed to the tree; not only was Christ crucified, but the law came thereby to its end, as far as God’s people were concerned. We are now placed under Christ. We are now regarded as being “in the Spirit,” for Christ is our life and the Holy Ghost is the power of that life.
Well, here then he says that it was needful that he should exhort them to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” This is what is on my heart to speak about. How great is, not only “conversion” such as the O.T. people knew before faith came but, the “salvation” which is now, as the apostle Paul says in Ephesians (Eph 1:13 ), “the word of truth, the gospel of your (not conversion but the gospel of your) salvation”! This is what was added consequent upon redemption. Nobody could have been delivered from hell without being converted; but the “gospel of our salvation” is to make us perfectly happy on earth, to bring us into cloudless peace and liberty while here in this world. It is this that is new, from the cross of Christ. Why, beloved friends, it is new to many children of God now! They are not sure at all, even those that are most real; with many it is only a “humble hope.” But through God’s mercy, I take it for granted that we have all learned this, more or less, the more the better. I do say that this is an all-important thing. Sometimes, when persons are seeking to come into fellowship, there is an idea of the importance of their understanding the church. How they are to understand the church I do not know. I did not understand it when I first began to break bread. I never saw any that did. I have seen persons that thought they did, and they had to correct their thoughts afterwards. We should not expect this knowledge. Possibly, of the saints in communion who have been in fellowship for forty years, there may be many who have not even yet arrived at a true knowledge of what the church is. But to ask it from a dear soul that has not long been saved! Ah, that is the point – not only “converted,” but brought into liberty and peace. I do say we ought to look for that before we get them to the table of the Lord; and we are not on proper Christian ground till we know that we are saved. This is what the gospel gives. It is not a hope of being saved, but knowing it in a simple straight-forward, intelligent, Christian manner. However, the word “intelligence” might leave room for our active brethren to find difficulties! I do not want to put difficulties in the way of any, still less in the way of a soul that is trembling and uncertain.
The great requirement for souls seeking fellowship, and, I think, the only requirement, is that they should be settled firmly on Christ and Christ’s salvation as a known present thing. Perhaps we find a person that cannot stand that. I recommend them to hear the gospel. There are plenty of saints who want to hear a full gospel. I do not say a free gospel. A full gospel does not convert many souls. A free gospel may do so. A free gospel may be used to awaken many, to cause exercise, but a full gospel will bring the answer to all these difficulties. Peter, I may say, preached a free gospel, and Paul a full one. Most of the children of God have not got a full gospel. It is essential that they should, before they can take their place as members of the body of Christ. Suppose they come in without it: perhaps the first hymn that is given out is an expression of thanksgiving that every question is settled for ever, and they are thus called to sing about themselves what they do not believe, and do not know about. They sing (in, what I call, a slipshod manner, without any conscience) what may not be true of their state, what is too much for them. Well, all that is a very unhappy state of things, and ought not to be. But if they are brought into the liberty of Christ, before they are received, not expecting from them clearness of intelligence, but knowing that their souls are set free (and nothing less than that should be looked for), then things go on happily. They learn quite fast enough when they come in, provided they have liberty in their souls. The lack of it is the barrier against learning. If I have difficulties about my soul with God for ever, it is no good to tell me about other things; and, therefore, wherever that is passed over lightly, there is a barrier. But as to everything else, well, one thing at a time is quite as much as we can bear, and people who grasp everything at the same moment, I am afraid, grasp nothing. All is apt to be cloudy in their minds, and that is not “the faith that was once delivered to the saints.”
“The faith” is not a mere mist. Mysteries are not mists or clouds. Mysteries are the firmest things in the Bible. The N.T. is full of mysteries – mystery “concerning Christ and the church,” “the mystery of God,” “the mystery of the gospel,” “the mystery of the faith.” Mystery means what was not revealed in O.T. times; now it is. That is just our privilege. Even Christ Himself, in the way that we receive Him now, is a mystery. Do we simply believe on Him as the Messiah? “Great is the mystery of godliness; God [or, He Who] was manifested in flesh, was justified in Spirit, seen of angels, preached among Gentiles, believed on in [the] world, received up in glory” (1Ti 3:16 ). This is Christ as we know Him now. Everything is mystery in Christianity, even the way Christ is received. He was not known so before. It takes in the gospel, “the gospel of our salvation,” the clear riddance from all hindrances. Is not the assembly a mystery? Is it not a truth of the greatest moment for every member of the body of Christ to know? And when you have your convert, when the soul is there brought to know the gospel, then show him what the church is, as best you can. Take trouble with him. Do not imagine he knows what he does not know. Where is he to learn if not inside? He will never learn by staying away. The church of God is not only the great place of incomparable blessing and enjoyment, it is also the great school. Well, the soul wants to go to school. Will he find a better school outside?
Even the best of those who are outside – that is, those that are not gathered to the name of the Lord, they are mostly occupied about salvation for themselves, or if not that, about work for others. What can you expect better? They do not know the relationships into which they are brought. Take the question that is now so uppermost in people’s minds – priesthood. What an Evangelical would say to meet priestly pretension is, that it is all a mistake to suppose that there are any priests but Christ. Is that where you are? The truth that God has shown us is, that all Christians alike are priests. When you are only on Evangelical ground, it is not the assertion of positive possession of privilege, it is merely denying an error, a negative way of looking at things. Many would indeed admit that we are all priests, but they do not see how it is applied. If they are all priests unto God, they should be allowed to express their praise, and others join (Heb 10:22 ) “Let us” (not you, he puts himself along with those to whom he was writing – let us) draw “near” into the holiest. Were this really applied, people might want to express their audible praises to God sometimes, and this would be considered disorderly. Do you think that we are always as careful as we ought to be? There are two words of moment in the First Epistle to the Corinthians – the first is, “in order,” the other is, “to edification.” All things should be done “in order,” and “to edification” (1Co 14:26 , 1Co 14:40 ). How are we to judge of what is done? It is laid down in this very chapter. Why do we forget it sometimes?
A question was put to me, whether it is according to scripture that, at what is called an assembly meeting, or other meeting of a similar character, more than two should speak. What is laid down as to this? That two, or at most three, might speak (1Co 14:27 , 1Co 14:29 ). Where there are more, I should be disposed to get away as fast as possible. You are mistaken about your liberty. We have only liberty to do what the Lord says; and I can see the wisdom of this limitation. There might be plenty of time for half a dozen speakers, but still the order is clear, “two, or at most three,” There can be no question about the meaning. It certainly does not mean that there might not be half a dozen prayers by different people, but that formal speaking, even of prophets, had its limits. And surely the lesser gifts have not a greater liberty than the greater ones! The prophets had the highest gift, and yet it is said, they were only to speak two or three. The plain meaning of it is that there never ought to be, under any excuse, more than two or three. Too much of a good thing is as bad as too little. If you have too much of what is even good, it is apt to make you sick: you must leave room for proper digestion. Hence the wisdom in the restriction as to numbers.
So it is – what seems to me to be so very plain – that we have not got merely the facts given and the commandment of the Lord, but good reason given. There is perfect wisdom, there is not such a thing as an arbitrary word in all the Bible. All the rules and regulations, commandments and precepts, are pregnant with divine wisdom.
It is a long while since “brethren” first began; but there never was a time when we are more called to see whether we are really “contending earnestly for the faith once for all (not “once on a time,” but, “once for all”) delivered to the saints.” May God forbid that we should ever swerve in the least degree! We are not competent to say what a little beginning of divergence may lead to. It might be apparently a little beginning, but alas, a little beginning of a great evil.
The Lord give us simple fidelity, and in all love to our brethren. I never think of my brethren being merely such as are gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus; and I feel most deeply the undermining that is going on everywhere of things that were once undisputed.
Jud 1:3 .
Jude, then, was in full expectation of a departure from “the faith,” and that it would be necessary to defend the faith. He evidently had had it on his heart to speak to them of comforting things, things that are always bright and sweet to the believer; but the circumstances called for alarm, for solemn warning. This is never very acceptable to people. They prefer things smooth; but the apostle himself, or the writer, whether an apostle or not – the writer’s whole heart would have delighted in dwelling on all that was comforting and strengthening to the soul. But, my brethren, what is the good of that if the foundations are being undermined? This is what you must look at. Therefore he draws attention to the fact that the faith was “once for all delivered.” “Once” is an equivocal word. It might mean “once on a time,” once at a particular moment; but this is not the force of the word here at all. It means “once for all.” And what a blessing it is that we have in this book (and more particularly in the books of the New Testament), the holy deposit which we are called upon to believe, given us in full, “once for all.” There is not a truth to be received that is not revealed in the word of God. There is not a difficulty nor a departure from the truth which is not in one way or another there guarded against. We, therefore, never require to go outside the revelation of God; and this explains why God permitted, in the early apostolic days, that there should be a deal of evil. Does it surprise us that there should have been gross disorders among the Corinthians, for instance, even at the table of the Lord? Well, one is naturally struck at first sight by such a fact. How was it that when there was such power of the Holy Ghost, that when there were miracles wrought, that when there were prophets prophesying (the highest form of teaching), that at the same time and place, the saints that gathered on the Lord’s Day, broke out into a disorder that we never find even in the present day, or very rarely? How could God more guard us than by allowing it then? It is always a very delicate matter to deal with evil, either of doctrine, or practice, or service, or government, or worship, or anything that you can speak of. It was of the very greatest moment, therefore, that God, in view of the evils that would, some time or another, appear in the church, should allow the germ of the evils to appear then; and, for this reason, that we might have divinely given directions for dealing with the evils when they did appear. Consequently, we are not taking the place of setting up to legislate; but we are not at liberty to depart from the word. This has been given us by the Holy Ghost. We are called to find therein everything that becomes us as saints, and for every part of our work to find a principle, and example too, sufficient to guide us; so that we may never set up any will of our own about a matter, and that we may always find God expressing, in one form or another, His will. What we have to do is to seek to learn from Him, and to apply the result, either to ourselves for our own correction, or to other people for their warning.
Now that is the reason why there is such great moment in Jude’s calling to mind that the faith was “once,” and “once for all,” delivered to the saints. And, as a point of fact, I do not think we shall ever find in scripture such a thing as a mere repetition. Sometimes you may have scriptures that approach very closely, and in the New Testament you could hardly have it more than in these two Epistles of Peter and Jude. But I am about to point out to you, what will appear as I go along still more completely, that, while there are resemblances between these two writers, who are both speaking of the terrible evil that was about to flood the church; and who naturally approach each other, yet there is a marked difference between them. It is always the difference that is the special lesson for us to learn. Where the two approach, it confirms. We can say, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” But where there is a divergence, and a distinction is to be seen in the lessons that they convey, we have evidently more than we might have had if we had only had one of the writers. The same thing is true, not merely in these two Epistles, but in Ephesians and Colossians for example. The resemblance there is so great that a favourite theory of the Rationalists is that the Epistle to the Colossians is the only one that Paul ever wrote, and that the one to the Ephesians is only an enlarged and inflated copy (written, perhaps, by a contemporary of the apostle); and, accordingly, that the latter has not the same divine (though I ought not, perhaps, to use that word) value – that it has not Paul’s value. These men do not believe in divine value, they do not believe in God having written these Epistles; but some of them do believe that Paul wrote that to the Colossians, but deny his having written the one to the Ephesians. A very learned man, who translated all the Bible (and, indeed, his is one of the best of the German translations), is one of this school. So that you may learn from this, that there are persons who have laboured all through their lives on the Bible, who nevertheless did not believe the Bible – i.e., really and truly. He, of course, would have entirely objected to such an account being given of him. But what matters what people object to, if it is true! He was a leading man in his day, and I hope that he was not without looking to Christ before his decease. But at any rate, what he did during his life was a sad departure from the truth of God, from “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”
Having then already dwelt a little upon what is one important and primary element of “the faith,” I add, further, that believers are brought into great relationships. Not only are we “converted” and “saved,” being brought into peace and liberty, but we are called to realise also that we are no longer merely English persons or French, Jews or Gentiles, but that we are children of God, and that we are such now. We, therefore, turn our backs on our boasting in our nation and our city, and our family, and all these various forms of men’s vanity, which is merely boasting of something of the flesh. We are called out of that now. This is also part of “the faith once delivered.” In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free (Gal 3:28 ). What does this mean? It means just what I have been saying.
Well then, again, we are made members of Christ’s body; and this is a relationship which so many of God’s children are so slow to believe. They think and talk of their being members of the Wesleyan body, or Presbyterian body, or Baptist, of this body, or that body, no matter what it is. Well, they say, to be sure we are members of Christ’s body, too! Yes, but if people valued the truth of their membership of Christ’s body, what would the other be in their eyes? Simply nothing at all. Where do you find the Presbyterian body, or the Episcopal body, or the Congregational body in the N.T.? Where do you find the Baptist body in the N.T.? There was an approach to this party spirit in the very earliest days – “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas” (1Co 1:12 ). Well, there you have the germ of it. And these germs never perish. It is not only that blessed germs of truth do not perish and are meant to take root and bear fruit, and consequently they are perpetuated here and there; but alas, evil germs do the same. And what is more, another thing is not a germ exactly, but is a leaven – a corrupt and a corrupting thing that is very palatable, making the wheaten bread to be lighter to the taste and pleasanter for some palates to partake of. And, at any rate, this leaven, whatever may be the case with the bread, is the corrupting influence at work among the saints in two forms. In Corinth it was the corruption of morals; in Galatia it was the corruption of doctrine. There you have it at work. When our Lord was here He confronted the same thing in the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees were the great corruptors morally; the Pharisees were the great religionists, or rather were strong for doctrine. But the Sadducees were sapping all doctrines by denying the truth. There you have the two things again – doctrinal leaven and corrupting leaven; at any rate there was “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” however you may describe it. There were also the Herodians – a worldly leaven, a pandering to the Roman court, not merely accepting the Romans as having power and authority from God, but trying to please them in order to make their own position better and their circumstances easier. So that you see what a very weighty truth is this, calling for earnest examination, to take care that we do not infringe upon or weaken our certainty in that faith which was “once delivered to the saints.” Are we indifferent about it? Have we an interest in it? Have we only partially received it, and are we content with that? Or are we resolved by the grace of God to refuse everything that is not the faith that was once for all delivered? Are we resolved to receive and maintain that faith in all its integrity? That is what we are called to do.
Jud 1:4 , Jud 1:5 .
Now this attitude was the more important; “for,” as he says, “certain men have crept in unawares.” Jude is not quite so advanced, in point of time, as John. When John wrote his First Epistle, the bad people went out – the antichrists went out (1Jn 2:19 ). But the danger here was that they were within. Certain men had crept in, as it were, unawares. That is, they had fair appearances at first, of course. “They, who before of old were ordained to this sentence” (“condemnation” is not exactly the meaning of the word – “to this judgment”) “ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying our only Master* and Lord Jesus Christ” (ver. 4).
* (God) though added (after “Master”) by KLP 31 Syrr., is omitted by ABC 13 Vulg. Copt. Sah. Arm. and thiopic Versions.
This, you see, is the prominent thing in Jude’s mind: so that, under fair appearances, they were undermining moral principles, they were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. This was the worst evil, as far as morals were concerned, that Jude warns them against in this Epistle; but then this evil is connected with a doctrinal error. They denied two things. In Peter they denied only one. There they denied the Sovereign Master that bought them (2Pe 2:1 ). Peter does not say that they were redeemed. It is a great mistake to confound being “bought” with being “redeemed.” All the world is bought, but only believers are redeemed. Universal purchase is a truth of God; universal redemption is a falsehood. Redemption implies that we have the forgiveness of sins. You see that clearly in the Epistles. Take, for instance, that to the Ephesians, “In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph 1:7 ). Now it is clear that the great mass of mankind have not redemption through His blood; but they are all bought, and the believer is bought too, and we are constantly exhorted on the ground, not only of our being redeemed, but of our being bought. For instance, the Corinthians are told that they were bought. That is the reason why they should not act as if they were their own masters. We have not any rights of our own (1Co 6 ). We are not at liberty to say, I think it quite right to go to a Court of Law in order to maintain my rights. No, I am bound, if I am summoned as a witness, to go; I am bound, if people go to law with me, to go. But on the contrary, to insist on my own rights! why do not I rather suffer wrong? That is the way the apostle Paul looks at it. And who is the apostle? The voice of God, the commandments of the Lord.
So that you see I come at once to the question of the faith, if really I believe what I may talk very glibly about as if I did. The difficulty is to find faith on the earth. As the Lord has said, “When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” Evidently, therefore, this departure from the faith is supposed by that very question of our Lord Jesus. Only here, the solemn thing is, that it is pressed on those who once bore the name of the Lord. They may go on for a while, for years; and there may be only some little things that one feels here or there, or their departure may not take anything like so terrible a form as here, but the question is, Where will it end? When once we get on the incline of our own rights, our own will; when once we abandon His Sovereignty, and, more than that, that He is not only Sovereign Master but our Lord; who can say what may not ensue?
Now here we get a closer relationship. Peter, in his Epistle, only supposes that universal place of our Lord. Why does Jude add, “denying our . . . Lord Jesus Christ”? Because he looks at that special following of those that are called by His name – on whom the name of the Lord is called. Here, therefore, we find a subtler and a deeper denial than the denial of the Sovereign Master in Peter. That of course was very far outside and very gross – “sects of perdition, and denying the Sovereign Master that bought them.” But here, in Jude, it is not only denying the Sovereign Master of the world, of everything; but “our Lord,” the One to Whom we belong, the One to Whose name we are baptised, the One Whom we profess to value and acknowledge to be our life and righteousness, and our all – denying Him!
You must not imagine that these things all come out in a short time. There is a little beginning of departure; but when your back is turned to the Lord and you follow that path, where will it end? No man can tell; but the Spirit of God can and does, and He shows that these little departures end in a fearful ditch of the enemy; and so He says:
“But I would remind you, though once for all knowing all things,* that [the] Lord having saved a people out of Egypt’s land, in the second place destroyed those that believed not” (ver. 5). Here we have again the same word “once,” which as we have already seen is equivocal. It might mean formerly; but that is not the meaning at all, no more than that the faith was formerly given. It means given “once for all.”
* (all things) ABC2 13 Vulg. Copt. Syr. Arm. and thiop. Vv. instead of (this) KL 31 and Sah. Version.
Well, he says, “once for all knowing,” not only “this,” but “all about it.” The word “this” is now in critical texts changed into “all things,” and this is exactly the position of the believer, which is the reason why we are so very responsible. Do you recollect what the apostle John says to the “babes” of the family? “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (1Jn 2:20 ). How did that come to pass? We are not in the habit of regarding babes so wise as this; yet what the apostle says must be true. The only question is – In what sense did he mean that they knew all things? I think the meaning is this. The babe has got Christ just as much as an apostle. Having Christ, he has the truth – all the truth. There it is; and he has also got the Holy Ghost – an unction from the Holy One. Therefore, he has got power in the gift of the Holy Ghost; for a babe has this gift. It is not the privilege only of the advanced learners in the school of Christ. The babes of the family of God have got Christ perfectly. They may draw it out very imperfectly. They may be able to look upon Christ, and speak of Christ in very hesitating terms as far as their intelligence goes, but such is their place and their privilege. Accordingly, Jude presses here their privilege of “once for all knowing all things.” Where were they now? They were in great danger. You often see this in the early beginnings of saints. They are very bright at first; they are not easily stumbled by anything they hear from the Bible; they receive it with simplicity, and delight in it. They, then, are knowing all things, in the sense in which the apostle speaks here. It is not a question of intelligence, but of simplicity and of a single eye, and when the eye is single the whole body is full of light. Thus they had it by the power of the Spirit of God, and it was not at all a question of their being great adepts in controversy, or showing a wonderful knowledge of the types, or anything of that kind. I call that intelligence. But this is the singleness of eye that looks to Christ and sees the truth in Christ, and is not troubled by the difficulties that people are always apt to feel when they begin to reason, when love gets cold and they have questions of duty. Then they cannot see clearly; then a trial is made on their faith to which it is not equal; then they begin to get dark, as well as to doubt. This is just where these saints appear to me to have been, whom the writer is here addressing as “once knowing all things.” They knew not only the faith, but these terrible things that are coming in.
However, Jude recalls them to their remembrance: “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though once for all knowing all things, how that [the] Lord, having saved a people out of [the] land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” That fact is a very solemn thing for the writer to bring before them; and it was meant to solemnize them, to deliver them from that careless state of soul which takes for granted that, because we have all been so blessed and led into the truth, no harm can happen. Why, on the contrary, beloved friends, for whom do you think Satan has the greatest hatred out of all on the face of the earth? Why, any that are following the Lord with simplicity; any that are truly devoted to the Lord. His great object is to try and stumble such, to turn them aside, to bring difficulties into their minds and make them hesitate. Now, where souls are simple and single-eyed, they have not these difficulties at all; but when they do not go on cleaving to the Lord with full purpose of heart, they begin to forget what they once knew. It is no longer Christ applied to judge everything here; they allow their own thoughts, their own feelings, their own mind, their own conceit, perhaps to lead them; but, whatever it is, it is not Christ, and now He brings this fact before them. Why, look at the history that you have in the very beginning of the Old Testament. God had a people once before us, and, what is more, God saved that people. That is the very thing – He did save them. It was not only that He passed over them in the land of Egypt, but there was His mighty arm at the Red Sea that crushed their enemies and saved themselves, and brought them into the desert that He might teach them what was in their heart, and let them know what was in His. But they went back to Egypt in their heart, and they could see no blessedness in Canaan, the heavenly land to which the Lord was leading them on – to Canaan, type of heaven, the land of God’s delight and glory; they could see nothing in it, and they did see that in the desert there were serpents sometimes to bite those that refused to learn from God; and, further, that the Lord, if He hearkened to their lusting after flesh, made the flesh to come out of them as it were through their nostrils, as a judgment upon their not being satisfied with the manna, the bread of heaven. All these things happened, and what was the result? All perished in the wilderness excepting two men: Caleb and Joshua.
Now Jude says, That is your danger. You must remember that you cannot tell for certain whether a person has life eternal. Every man ought to know that for himself; every woman ought to know that for herself. If a person believes that he or she has life eternal in Christ, they are called to follow the Lord with full purpose of heart. And if they do not follow Him so, or if attracted by anything worldly, or by pursuits of their own from day to day, they neglect the Lord and His word, and neglect prayer and all the helps that the Lord gives us, which we so deeply need for our souls – what will be the end of that? Just what Jude is showing them here: “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew all things, how that the Lord having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not.”
It turned out that they were not true believers, after all. The same thing applies now: “These things happened unto them for types; and they are written for our admonition.”
Jud 1:6 , Jud 1:7 , Jud 1:8 .
“And angels which kept not their own original estate, but abandoned their proper dwelling, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under gloom unto [the] great day’s judgment; as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, having in the like manner with them greedily committed fornication and gone after strange flesh, lie there an example, undergoing judgment of eternal fire. Yet likewise, these dreamers also defile flesh, and set at nought lordship and rail at dignities” (vers. 6-8)
If we compare this chapter of Jude with the Second Epistle of Peter, we get a very clear view of the precise difference between the two. No doubt there is a great deal that is common in both Epistles; but it is the difference that is of great account in taking a view of scripture, as has been already observed. In these two Epistles there may be many points in common, but the two accounts are thoroughly different. The same thing is true as regards all the testimony that God gives us. The marks of difference are the great criteria.
You will notice that Peter, after alluding to false teachers, alludes to “sects of perdition” (2Pe 2:1 ). The word heterodoxy gives a different idea. There was something of this difference in the minds of the apostles that ought to be in ours, viz.: – a very strong horror of the breach amongst those who belong to Christ and the church that He formed in unity here. There is a certain wilfulness that is particularly offensive to God. People now have so little sense of “wrongness” that they think it a natural thing that people should be justified in doing what they like; but to look at the matter in that sense would be to give up God. Perhaps men can be trusted in matters of ordinary life to form a sufficiently sound judgment as regards certain things, such as being careful of their food and careful of their dress, and also as regards other things that belong to this life. We find that God says little on the matter, except to guard His children from the vanity of the world and the pride of life. Still there is nothing technical or narrow laid down in the word of God. But it is quite another thing, when we consider that Christ died to “gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (Joh 11:52 ), that we should allow ourselves to extenuate a wilful departure from the right course, by allowing our own notions to carry us away therefrom. Persons should not allow themselves to do this kind of thing, nor should they think that they are superior to others, which is generally a great delusion on their part. You will not find that men who are devoted to Christ set themselves up in this way, because we all know that Christ teaches us to count others better than ourselves. That may become merely a foolish sentiment by the separating us from a spirit of power and of love, and of a sound mind. We are to judge of everything by Christ. If we let in “self,” we are sure to go wrong. This readiness to see Christ in everything is a happy thing when it is applied to our dealings with our brothers and sisters. It is not that others are necessarily better than ourselves, it is that we are to count them so in our spirit and in our dealings with them. When Christ is before us, we can afford to judge our sins as stronger than those of others. We are well aware of our faults; but it is only when we are much occupied with others’ doings that we know much about their faults. The great thing is that we are to see Christ as our guide, and we are to judge ourselves in ourselves; we are also to see Christ in others and to love them, and to count them better than ourselves.
There are other senses in which people get into this spirit of sect, and thereby give an improper value to certain views. For instance, with regard to baptism. In modern times, at any rate, and very likely also in ancient times, there is, I suppose, hardly anything that has troubled the church more than this subject. By some people, a superstitious value is given to baptism, causing them, as it were, to despise those who have a reasoning turn of mind, and those who have a strong theory and notions about the Jewish remnant; but, so far as I know, the Jewish remnant has nothing to do with Christian baptism, because the handing it over to the Jewish remnant means giving up our relation to Christ. For Christian people, who are already walking in the ways of the Lord, to be occupied with baptism is, in my opinion, a most extraordinary inversion of all that is wise and right, because Christian people have passed through that experience already. Perhaps, when the ceremony was performed it was not done in the best way, and we may think that, therefore, if we had known then what we know now; we might have been more careful in its performance. Baptism is merely an external visible confession of the Lord Jesus, and for persons who have been confessing the Lord for twenty, thirty, or forty years, to be occupied with baptism seems to me to be an extraordinary change from all that is wise. Baptism is an initiatory step; our Christianity begins when we begin our Christian confession – we should, therefore, be going forward, not backward.
Baptism has even been used as the badge of a sect, and time would fail to narrate the many other ways in this regard. But here, in Peter’s Epistle, we have a darker thing referred to – “sects of perdition” (2Pe 2:1 ). It evidently was not merely a sect, but a sect of perdition. In this case, the sect of perdition was evidently something very dreadful, and it was apparently against the Lord, because the words are “denying the Sovereign Master that bought them.” This, as we have already remarked, is not “redemption” but “purchase,” and so takes in all men whether converted or not. It is the denial of His rights over all as the Sovereign Master. So, too, Peter begins at once with the flood, the deluge, but there is not a word about that in Jude. This is another great mark of difference to note, the manner in which the denial of the Lord is described, and how we find God’s mode of dealing with this matter. So one sees the propriety of the flood being brought in by Peter, because it was the universal unrighteousness and rebelliousness of the whole world. Jude, on the other hand, was not given to look at that particularly, but at the hostility that is shown to the truth and to Christ. Peter looks at the general unrighteousness of mankind, and so he says: “For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to lowest hell and delivered them up to chains of gloom reserved for judgment, and spared not an ancient world, but preserved Noah, an eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, having brought a flood upon a world of ungodly ones; and reducing to ashes [the] cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, He condemned [them] with an overthrow, having set an example to those that should live ungodlily; and rescued just Lot” etc. (2Pe 2:4-7 ).
What makes the reference again more remarkable is that Jude speaks of the “angels that kept not their own estate,” but Peter of “angels that sinned,” and who consequently come under the dealing of God. The flood is upon the world of the ungodly, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned into ashes for an example to those that should live ungodlily; but just Lot was delivered because he was a just man. The want of righteousness brought this punishment upon everyone. It is their general ungodliness, but no doubt there is a particularity which Jude takes up, whilst Peter takes up the universality. This is the marked difference between the two. I have dwelt upon this because it shows what the world of modern unbelief is – what is called higher criticism. For these men have been struck by the resemblance between this Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of Peter; but with all their boasting of unbelief they have not got the discernment to see that there is a marked difference between the two. These men have been caught by the superficial resemblance of the two Epistles; but when you, as it were, lift up the superficial veil in which these Epistles agree, you will find that the colours are different. You will find darker colours in Jude than in Peter, although it is bad enough in Peter, most terribly evil. But it is of a general kind; whereas, Jude was led by the Holy Ghost to devote himself to the peculiar form that wickedness takes when it turns from the grace of God, when it turns to licentiousness.
Hence Jude begins with what is not referred to in Peter at all, and it is for this reason that I read verse 5 over a second time to-night. “I will, therefore, put you in remembrance, though once for all knowing all things, that the Lord, having saved a people” – mark that – “out of the land of Egypt” – that is the sovereign grace that shows the salvation. I am not speaking of it now as eternal salvation. It was sovereign grace that chose Israel; they were not chosen for everlasting glory, but only delivered out of Egypt. That surely shows a manifestation of God’s goodness, Who, instead of allowing them to be oppressed and terrorised over by the cruel Egyptians, smote the Egyptians and delivered His people. They came into the narrower circle in one sense of what were God’s people, in one sense also they were saved; but they gave up the grace, they abandoned God. This latter is what Jude has particularly in view. He looks at Christendom as being about to abandon the truth. He shows that whatever the special favour shown by God, men will get away from and deny it; and further, that instead of using grace to walk morally, they will take advantage of grace to allow of a kind of immorality – they will turn the grace of God into licentiousness.
Peter says nothing about this, but Jude does; so that it is evident that these learned men (who think they are so clever in showing that Jude and Peter are merely imitators of one another, and that it is the same thing in substance in both – that there is no particular difference, that they are in fact the same human picture), do not see God in either. Now, what we are entitled to is to see God in both Epistles, and what is more we should hear God’s voice in both. You see then that Jude begins with this solemn fact that the Lord “having saved a people out of the land of Egypt” – I am giving now the strict force of the word – “the second time” (that He acted) “destroyed those that believed not.” The first act was that He “saved” them, He brought them out by means of the paschal lamb, which was His first great act of “saving.” The first time that God’s glory appeared and He put Himself at the head of His people, He saved them out of the land of Egypt. What was “the second time”? When He “destroyed” them. It is not vague, but it specifically mentions “the second time”; this is the great point. At the time the golden calf was set up, that was the beginning of “the second time,” and God went on smiting and smiting until everyone was destroyed except Caleb and Joshua. That was the second time. This went on for forty years, but it is all brought together in the words “the second time.” God “destroyed them that believed not.” That is the charge brought against them. Their carcases were falling in the wilderness. In Heb 3 (as is very evident also in the book of Numbers and elsewhere) there is this threat during their passage through the wilderness. It is one of the great facts of the books of Moses. As regards those that came out of Egypt, they came under the hand of God; some perished at one time, some at another, but all perished in one way or the other, until all disappeared; and yet they had all been “saved” out of the land of Egypt by the Lord.
Oh, what a solemn thing to set this before us now! When I say before us, I mean before the church of God, before all that bear the name of the Lord Jesus here below. This is put expressly as a sample of the solemn ways of God to be recollected in Christendom. Then Jude also refers to the angels. I think the wisdom of that is evident. Peter begins with the angels and then goes on to refer to the flood. I think, therefore, if any person looks at Gen 6 he will find a great deal of wisdom in Jude’s reference. I am well aware, of course, that there are many that view “the sons of God” in a very different way to what it appears to me. They are sometimes very surprised, and expect one to be able to answer all their questions. I do not assume any such competency. I admire the wisdom of God in that God does not stop to explain. He feels the awful iniquity of what occurred in reference to these angels. They are fallen angels, and of quite a different class to those who fell before Adam was tempted.
It appears there were at least two falls of angels; one was he whom we call Satan – when man was made, Satan tempted man through Eve. Those ordinary evil angels, of which we read in the Bible from Genesis down to Revelation, are not under everlasting chains at all. They are roving about the world continually, and so far from being in chains of darkness, in “tortures” as it is called here, they are allowed access to heaven. You will see that in a very marvellous way in the history of Job. A great many believers do not believe in the book of Job. You will see there “the sons of God” referred to. What is meant by “the sons of God” there? Why, the angels of God. The angels of God appeared before God. We learn from this that they have access, and include not only the good angels but also the Satanic angels. Satan was a fallen angel, but still he was an angel, and when “the sons of God” came, Satan was there too. So that it is evident, from the Book of Revelation more particularly, that Satan will not lose that access to the presence of God until we are actually in heaven. It has not come to pass yet. People have an extraordinary idea in their heads that whatever access Satan had before that time, he lost it – either when our Lord was born, or when our Lord died but there is nothing of this in the Epistle to the Ephesians, where, on the contrary it is expressly stated that our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against wicked spirits in the heavenlies. We are not like the Israelites fighting against Canaanites. Our Canaanite is a spiritual enemy in heavenly places, that is, Satan and his host of demons or angels.
But, as we have seen, these are not at all the sins that are referred to here. There is a marked difference. There is a character of iniquity that these angels fell into on earth, and so a distinct difference in their doom. These angels fell into a very peculiar iniquity, which is in a general way spoken of in Peter, but in a special way in Jude. They were put under chains of darkness and not allowed to stir out of their prison. They are not the angels that tempt us now. They did their bad work just a tattle time before the flood. That fact gives the matter a very solemn character. If people want to know how it was done, that I do not know; but you are called upon to believe, just as much as I am. What Gen 6 does say is that there were “sons of God” upon earth at that time who acted in a way contrary to everything in relation to God, and which was so offensive to Him that He would not allow the earth to go on any longer, and this is what brought on the flood. No doubt too there was also a general iniquity in mankind that brought the flood upon them. Man was very corrupt and man was vile, but besides that there was this awful violation of the marks that divide the creatures of God in some mysterious manner. Hence God completely destroyed the whole framework of creation, and put an end to them and their offspring, so that every one of them perished. That is what took place then Of course, you will tell me that they could not perish absolutely. No, I admit that these angels could not perish any more than men such as you; but this is what God did with those angels that behaved in that tremendously wicked manner. They became prisoners, they were put under confinement, not like Satan and his host that tempt us to this day, but these particular angels were not allowed to tempt men any more. They had done too much, and God would not allow these things to go on any longer, therefore there was this mighty interference at the time of the flood, and not only the things that generally inflict men. These are the words, “Angels that kept not their first estate.” Their falling was a departure from their first estate. In this very case Satan had not done so, nor had the angels that fell with Satan. But it was quite another kind of iniquity that caused the flood. These angels left their own habitation and preferred to take their place among mankind to act as if they were men on earth, and accordingly, God has now reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day. Nobody can say that this is true of Satan and his host, but if people should think this, I do not see how they can read these verses and give such a meaning to them. Satan will be cast into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, but their years do not run out until the judgment of the great day comes. Then they will be judged everlastingly.
What makes the matter so striking is that Jude compares this conduct, and this awful opposition to all the landmarks that divide angels from mankind, with Sodom and Gomorrah. We know that the enormity of this wickedness exceeded that even of all wicked people. So here their sin brings them into juxtaposition with Sodom and Gomorrah, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering vengeance of eternal fire” (ver. 7).
When we come back to Peter and see what he has to say on this matter, it is, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned.” Peter does not go further than that. Of course we know how they sinned – that is what Jude looks into. But here in Peter it is general – “angels that sinned.” He cast them down into hell and darkness, but that description does not apply to Satan and his host. Therefore it seems there were two different falls of angels; one, Satan and his followers mounting up in the pride of their hearts to God, the other, these angels sinking down in the wickedness of their heart to man, to man in a very low condition indeed. The difference therefore is most marked. God “delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved to judgment, and spared not the old world.” There is a connection between the two narratives, as it is about the same time. Peter marks this very point, and puts it along with God’s dealing with the angels. This however is entirely left out by Jude. Peter says, “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth [person].”
How is Noah described? As “a preacher of righteousness.” Noah was not a preacher of grace. The grand truth that Noah proclaimed was that God was going to destroy the world by the deluge. That was exactly the right message. I do not think we are entitled to say he said nothing more, but the characteristic of Noah was that he was “a preacher of righteousness.” This is precisely what occurs in Peter; he does not bring out the grace of God at all, in his chapter. He is thundering at unrighteousness. He is giving with that trumpet of righteousness a very clear sound indeed. He is evidently giving out, in very dark and solemn words, the destruction that shall await the wicked at the great change; and he shows that the same thing has happened before, and he begins, as far as man is concerned, not with Israel saved out of Egypt by God, but looks at the whole world destroyed. He is looking at the universality of unrighteousness, and not at the gradual departure of the people that were saved, saved first and lost afterwards. “He saved Noah, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” Peter then looks at the cities of the plain – more particularly Sodom and Gomorrah. He does not say anything about the special iniquity, but looks at it in a general way. “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodlily; and delivered just Lot vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked. For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” (2Pe 2:4-8 ).
So that instead of these two Epistles being alike, one of them a mere replica of the other, and an imitation in a clumsy way, they are both marked by most peculiarly different characteristics. And this is what deludes some men with all their criticism, and all the doctrine of the working of mind and the reasoning of rationalism is entirely outside the mark. Man’s mind sees certain things in a general outside way and reasons upon it, flattering himself that he is doing something wonderful, and that he is bringing light when he is only spreading mist over the precious word of God, nothing but mist and darkness. So that the general difference between the two Epistles is very marked indeed.
Well then, we come now to the bearing of Peter’s words upon the present time. “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” That is the practical testimony coming out of it. “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government.” It is not, you observe, simply corruptness. No, it is the larger view that is looked at. What would apply to Mahommedanism would apply to Judaism, would apply to heathenism, and would also apply to Christendom. The analogy is, that this particular form of evil requires a particular form of discipline, and that the world will be destroyed not by water but by fire from God in heaven. That is what I think is referred to by the “overthrow,” and the reason of it; “whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord” (2Pe 2:9-11 ).
But when we come to Jude, it is a great deal closer than all this. What he says is, “Likewise also these dreamers.” I do not know any reason for putting in the word “filthy.” You will see the word is in italics. There is a great deal of wickedness where there is nothing wrong in word. It is only in the idea, there may be nothing offensive, yet it is sapping and undermining all that is precious in those people who live in the imagination of their own hearts instead of being guided by the word of God. Why? Because the word of God is an expression of God’s authority, and His will is the only thing that ought to guide us, as well as all mankind. If that is true of man because he is the creature of God, how much more is it true of those whom He has begotten by the word of truth! These latter are therefore called more particularly to heed and learn the word of God. I do not know anything of more practical importance than that. If I were to give, in one word, in what all practical Christianity consists, I should say – obedience; and that obedience is entirely one of faith, not law. It is characterised in quite another way by Peter, “obedience of Jesus Christ,” (1Pe 1:2 ) not obedience of Adam. Adam’s obedience was that he was not to touch that particular tree, but now that God has revealed His will we are bound by that revealed will. To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin. It is not merely you must not do anything wrong in all those ways of men which show how far their heart is from God, but “to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Talk about James being legal! obedience is his peculiar grace. He is the very one that speaks about “the law of liberty.” The law of Moses was the law of bondage; it was purposely to convict man of sin which he had in his nature, to crush all self-righteousness out of him. Whereas what James speaks of is the exercise of a new life that God’s grace gives us, and of the love that Christ has revealed that we should be after the pattern of Christ. What was the difference between Christ’s obedience and the Israelite’s obedience? The Israelite’s was, Thou shalt not do this or that. But this is not what Christ says. Of course, Christ never did anything that was wrong. Christ was pleasing to God in every act of His life, in every feeling of His soul, in all that constituted walking with God here below. This is exactly what we are called here to do. This is what Peter means when he says, “Elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification (or, in virtue of sanctification) of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood, of Jesus Christ” (1Pe 1:1 , 1Pe 1:2 ).
The sprinkling is the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, and the reference is to Exo 24 , where Moses takes the book of the law and sprinkles it with blood, and he sprinkles the people too with blood; everything being thus brought under death. It was the great mark of death having its sway. The book and the people were sprinkled with the blood shed, meaning death to any who failed to obey that book. Now the Christian in a way stands totally contrasted with that; when he is converted his first desire is to do the will of God. When Saul of Tarsus was smitten down, his first words as a converted man were, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” And this is what occurs even before we get peace. It is so with every converted person. His first desire is to do the will of God. He very little knows himself. He does not know how weak he is. He has got a bad nature counteracting him, but he has yet to learn the operation of the new nature that is in him. How does that new nature come? By receiving the word of revealed grace. I do not say the work of Christ the Saviour, because Saul knew very well that he knew nothing; but mercy and goodness struck him down and gave him a new nature that he once railed at. Paul knew Christ was saving him, but he did not know that we have to learn, not only the word of God, but the experimental way of finding our need of it. It is not only the Saviour that we want, but the mighty work that abolishes all our sins, and brings us to God in perfect peace and liberty through the redemption of the Lord Jesus. It is not only that I am born again; that I am going to be saved by and by, but saved now. This is the proper meaning of the Christian dispensation that produces this desire even before I know that the blood of Christ is screening me entirely. I want to obey as Christ obeyed, not merely to do something like the Jew, but I am doing it now because this nature in me impels me to do it. It is the instinct of the new man. We have a great deal to learn about our utter weakness, and, consequently, about the need of deliverance. So we are elect unto the obedience of Christ, and are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, which gives us the comfortable assurance that our sins are clean gone. Hence the difference is very plain.
Now these “dreamers” referred to, lived in the imagination of their own hearts, and the New Testament is used to help these men very much indeed. When the New Testament is taken up by the natural mind, they proclaim what is called Christian Socialism, which sets up a standard of the gospel and dictates to everybody. You have no right to this large property! You have no right to these privileges that you assume! I am as good as you, and better too! This is the style these men take up with regard to the New Testament, thereby entirely twisting the word in order to gain advantages to themselves and to deny all the truth. It is really dreaming about what ought to be, according to their mind, and to claim everything that they covet from those that are in a dignified position in the world – “likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion and speak evil of dignities.” They defile the flesh by what they convert scripture to. They consider themselves the equals of all, and not only so, but speak evil of dignities, so that there is evidently no fear of God before their eyes at all. And this shows that there is something very lamentable in the perversion of the gospel, the perversion of the New Testament. It is their own bad and selfish purpose that causes them to do this. The whole principle of the New Testament is this: what those that are of Christ do. Well, they feel according to Christ. What is that? Why, it is the principle of love that gives, that does not seek its own. Do you think these kind of men have any idea of giving? They only talk about other people giving. So this is all dreaming, as it is called here. Very justly Jude launches out into these strong terms, “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”
Jud 1:9 .
“But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (ver. 9).
The verse now before us presents one ground of exception taken against the Epistle by men who trust themselves. This introduction of Michael the archangel seems to them altogether inexplicable, as they consider it a mere tradition of the Jews reproduced by Jude or at any rate by one who wrote the Epistle bearing his name; for they really do not know or care who wrote it. Only nobody must believe that Jude wrote it! Such talk consists simply of the objections of unbelief, which, doubting all that is inspired of God, sets itself to shake the confidence of those who do believe.
Although it is a fact presented in no other part of God’s word, what solid reason is there in that to object? There is ground for thankfulness that He makes it known here.
Not a few statements may be traced in scripture, which have been given but a single mention; but they are just as certain as any others which are repeatedly named. The apostle Paul, in 1Co 6:3 , declares that the saints shall judge angels. It is not only that they shall judge the world, which no doubt is a truth revealed elsewhere; but it is there expressly said that they are to judge angels. I am not aware of any other scripture which intimates a destiny that most would consider strange if not incredible. We do find that the world to come is not to be put under angels; but that is a different thing. It does assure us that the habitable earth is to be put under the Lord Jesus in that day; and the saints are to reign with Him. To the risen saints will be given to share His royal authority; for that is the meaning here of “judging.” It has nothing at all to do with Christ’s final award of man. It is not a small mistake to suppose that the saints will exercise the final judgment over men or angels. All such judgment is exclusively given to the Son of man (Joh 5:22 , Joh 5:27 ; Rev 20 ).
When it is said that we shall judge the world, the meaning is plain whether men believe or not. Such judging is to exercise the highest power and authority over the world by the will of God and for the glory of the Lord Jesus. But there is no warrant for the notion that saints will take part in the great white throne judgment. On that throne sits only One, He that knows every secret, that searches the reins and hearts; and He is the sole Judge when it is a question of judging man in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to Paul’s gospel. No man was ever given to fathom the lives of others; nor am I aware that we shall ever be called to share that knowledge so essential to the Judge of quick and dead.
In fact, the notion that we are to sit in judgment on people for eternity is a gross and groundless blunder, for which there is no shadow of proof in any part of scripture. But we shall judge the world when the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ is come. He will reign for ever; and so shall we, as His word assures; but there is a special display of this joint reign, and this is during the thousand years. This, of course, is no question of eternal judgment, but of the kingdom; whereas, when the earth and the heaven flee, and no place is found for them, eternal judgment follows, and none but the Lord judges. All judgment is given to Him, when the works of men, who despised Him throughout the sad annals of time, come up for His eternal sentence. No assessors are associated with Him; He alone is the Judge.
There remains, however, the plain revelation that we shall judge angels. If this is confined to that one scripture, be it so; one clear word of God is as sure as a thousand. If we have to do with the witness of man, the word of a thousand, if they are decent people, must naturally have a weight beyond one man’s. But here it is no question of men at all. What we stand upon, and the only thing that gives us firmness of ground and elevation above all mist, the only thing that gives us faith, reverence, simplicity, and humility, is God’s word. It is indeed a wonderful mercy, in a world of unbelief, truly to say, I believe God; to bow before, and rest in, the testimony of God; to have perfect confidence in what God has not only said, but written expressly to arrest, exercise, and inform our hearts.
Assuredly, if God says a thing once unmistakably, it is as certain as if it had pleased Him to say it many times. Indeed, as it appears to me, it will be found that God hardly ever repeats the same thing. There is a shade of difference in the different forms that God takes for communicating truth. Such is one of its great beauties, though quite lost to unbelievers, because they listen to His words in a vague and uncertain manner. As they never appropriate, so they never hear God in it. They may think of Paul or Peter, John or James, and flatter themselves to be quite as good or perhaps better. What is there in all this but man’s exalting himself to his own debasement? He sinks morally every time he lifts himself up proudly against God and His word.
Here then we have a fact about the unseen world communicated, not in the days of Moses or Joshua, when the burial of Moses is brought before us. Here Jude writes many years after Christ, and first mentions it. Why should this appear strange? The right moment was come for God’s good pleasure to communicate it.
Did not the apostle Paul first give us in his last Epistle the names of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses before Pharaoh? No doubt we were told of such magicians; but we did not know their names till the Second Epistle to Timothy was written. Scripture can only be resolved into the will of God. It pleases God to exercise His entire sovereignty in this, and He would therein show Paul given to write of a thing reserved for him to bring out alone. So here we have the Holy Ghost proving His power and wisdom in recalling a mysterious fact at the close of Moses’ life. Why should men doubt what is so easy for God to make known?
Is there anything too wonderful for His grace? Is not He Who works in revealing, God’s eternal Spirit? And why should not He, if He see fit, reserve the names for that day when Paul wrote? The occasion was the growth of deceivers in Christendom – a thing that many seem disposed to entirely overlook. They yield to the amiable fancy that such an evil is impossible, especially among the brethren! But why so? Surely such impressions are not only stupid in the highest degree, but unbelieving too. It ought to be evident that, if anywhere on the face of the earth Satan would work mischief, it is exactly among such as stand for God’s word and Spirit. Where superstition is tolerated, and rationalism reigns, he has already gained ruinous advantage over the religious and the profane. If any on the face of the earth at the present time refute both these hateful yet imposing errors, his spite must be against them. The reason is plain. We have no confidence in the flesh, but in the Lord; and to that one Name we are gathered for all we boast, leaning only on His word and the Spirit of God.
Let these then be our Jachin and Boaz, the two pillars of God’s house, even in a day of ruin and scattering. Let us rejoice to be despised for the truth’s sake. How can we expect to have any other feelings excited towards us? Do we not tell everybody that the church is a wreck outwardly? And do they not say on the contrary that the church bids fair for reunion? that the classes and the masses are alike won by grand buildings, rites, ceremonies, music, and the like? that there is on the one side inflexible antiquity for those who venerate the past but on the other side the device of development to flatter the hopeful and self-confident? Then think of the modern influx of gold and silver, of which the apostolic church was so short! Is it not God now giving it to His church that they may in time buy up the world! And if any tell them that all such vaunts are only among the proofs of the church’s utter ruin, what can they be but hateful and obnoxious in their eyes? Christ has always a path for the saints, a way of truth, love, and holiness for the darkest day of ruin, as much as for any other. It is for the eye single to Him and the ear that heeds His word to find the path, narrow as it is, but its lines fallen in pleasant places and a goodly heritage. But if we, hankering after earthly things, entangle ourselves with man’s thoughts or the world’s ways in religion, what can this issue be but that we help on the ruin? Disturbed, uneasy and unhappy we become, like Samson with his hair cut, weak as water, and blind to boot.
Nor is it at all unaccountable that men are busy against an Epistle which is one of the loudest and clearest in the trumpet blast that is blown against Christendom. For it expressly lays down that departure from the truth, and the turning God’s grace to licentiousness, are to go on till judgment thereon – not that there may not be such as are faithful and true, keeping themselves in the love of God, and building themselves up on that most holy faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. What can be conceived more remote from men’s new inventions? from the vain restlessness which is ever in quest of some fresh effort? From everything of the sort we are bound to keep clear, as being deadly. It is not only from all tampering with bad ways, or false doctrine, but from humanising on what is divine. To this we are bound by the very nature of Christianity, which calls us to entire dependence upon the word and Spirit of God. It is not for us then, to be asking what is the wrong of this? or what harm is there in that? For the believer the true question is, What saith the scripture? How is it written?
It is written here: “But Michael the archangel, when, contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (ver. 9). Here, then, is a grand truth, taught in a striking and powerful manner. The apostle Peter, in the 2nd chapter of his Second Epistle, is said to give exactly the same thing as Jude, but he says not one word about it. He makes no allusion to Michael the archangel. He speaks in verse 4 of angels that sinned, whom God did not spare. But Jude presents it as the angels that kept not their first estate. This clearly has nothing to do with Michael. The reference to the archangel is entirely peculiar to Jude; and the object is to exhibit the spirit that becomes one who acts for God, even in dealing with His worst enemy, that there be no meeting evil with evil, nor reviling with reviling, but on the contrary immediate and confessed reference to God.
What makes it all the more surprising is the power vouchsafed to Michael. He is the angel whom God will employ to overthrow the devil from his evil eminence by-and-by (Rev 12 ). But here the historical intimation given is entirely in character with the future. You may tell me that Rev 12 . was not revealed to Jude, who wrote this. Be it so, yet the same God that wrought by Jude wrought also by John. It is evident from the two scriptures that the antagonism between Michael and the devil is not a truth foreign to God’s word. There we have it in the written word. It is the truth of God. Jude was given to tell us what God moved Jude to write, which has not only great moral value for any time, but gives us the fact, full of interest, that the antagonism between Michael the archangel and the devil is not merely of the future. Here the proof lies before us that it wrought also in the past. Thus we can look back fifteen hundred years, and there behold the evidence of this contention between the devil and the archangel. Do you say that it was about the body of Moses, and what is that to anyone? Can we not readily enter into the importance of that dispute? Can we not understand the bearing of that question, when we hold in mind all the history of Israel in the wilderness, as given in Exodus and Numbers?
There is nothing more common among the prophets than this, that while during their lifetime they were hated, after they were dead and gone they became objects of the highest honour; and, what is so remarkable, the highest honour to the same class of people that hated them. They became not objects of honour so much to other people, but were honoured by the same unbelieving class that could not endure the prophets’ words when they were alive. They are ready to kill the prophetic messenger when living, and all but worship him when he is dead. Well, it is the same unbelief that acts in both ways; which, when he was alive, scouted the word of God come through him, and condemned and hated him, but when he was dead, and no longer, therefore, a living character to puncture their conscience, the very people who had war with the prophet would build a fine monument to his memory; and so, getting the character of being men who had a great regard for the prophet, men, therefore, that were doing their best for religion, they gave their money to have erected a fine monument, or to have a fine statue made, or as grand a picture as they could pay for! So true it is, the flesh is quite remarkable for being ready to honour a man when he is dead and gone, whom it could not endure when alive. Our Lord drew attention to this very characteristic. It is not an idea of mine at all, it is the truth of God. Our Lord lays this down most strongly against the Jewish people; and it is not at all confined to Jewish people. If you go now to the town of Bedford – to take an instance from our own country – there you will find a fine monument to John Bunyan, who, when alive, was scouted, imprisoned, and regarded as a presumptuous, bad man. The very same class of people now buy his book, and at any rate are not sorry that the children should read it along with the Arabian Nights’ Entertainments in the nursery. So there they have the Pilgrim’s Progress and the Arabian Nights’ tales, and they are all considered equally entertaining for the children. They thereby show that they think the imprisoned tinker was a genius – for that is their way of looking at it; and therefore they gain for themselves credit in all sorts of ways, both as being men of taste, and also as men not at all averse to religion when it does not touch their conscience. The thing, therefore, that I am speaking of is always true and always will be true till the Lord come, and then there will be no such thing as “the vile person called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful,” nor, on the other hand, the unjust treated as righteous. Then there will be righteousness reigning, and everything and everyone will find their level according to God.
Now we all know from the account given of Moses, both in Exodus and Numbers, how constantly the children of Israel were contending with him, murmuring against him, speaking evil of him – hating Moses, really, and Aaron too. And it was only the power of God interfering every now and then that alarmed them, and cut them down, and compelled them at any rate to pay outward respect. But directly he was dead, the same devil that stirred them up against Moses when he was alive – oh, what would he not have given for that dead body! The dead body would have been made a relic. You know very well that this is a favourite idea of men – the dead body would have been an object of worship. The devil would, therefore, have gained doubly. First, by setting them at war with him while alive, and still more when he was dead by making them idolaters of Moses. So that we can easily understand why it was that the Lord buried the body Himself. But it appears that before he was buried, there was this contention between Michael the archangel and the devil about Moses’ dead body; so perfectly in keeping with the mysterious manner in which Jehovah buried him where none should know, and where even if Satan was allowed to know, God interfered that Michael should guard that grave, that Michael should hinder all the efforts of the devil to get hold of that dead body. So we have the two facts: what is here told us by Jude, and the fact of Deu 34 , where we have the account of the Lord’s burying Moses – which He never did for any other man. Show me only a single case of the Lord’s burying any one. I do not remember one but that of Moses, and there were special reasons why Jehovah should secretly bury that dead body rather than any other.
There never was a man that exercised so remarkable a position towards a whole people as Moses did to the children of Israel, and now that he was gone, a reaction would take place under the devil, not in the least a reaction of faith, but of unbelief, to idolise that very body, the same man whom they continually plagued while living.
So that the fact, here brought before us, goes along with another fact to which I have just now referred in the Old Testament (the two perfectly tally), viz. – that there were special reasons in the case of Moses’ dead body why the Lord should interfere. Now we learn from this passage in Jude a further very interesting fact, not about the Lord, but about the enemy and the one whom Jehovah thought proper to use. Now, there are others of great weight in heaven besides Michael. Gabriel stands in the presence of God, and, as we know, he was employed for a very important mission by God. It was not Michael, but Gabriel very particularly, who was used in announcing the birth of our Lord Jesus, and we can perfectly understand why Gabriel should be then employed rather than Michael. Michael is the prince that stands up for the Jewish people. Yes, but the Gospel of Luke shows the Lord Jesus born of woman, not merely for the Jewish people, but for man – “God’s good pleasure in men,” not merely in Jews: and therefore it is not that particular angel, Michael; he was not employed on that occasion. So that it appears to me that there was divine wisdom in Gabriel being employed on that mission rather than Michael; and that this is true will surely be very evident to anyone who reads Dan 10 and Dan 12 . I just refer to it now because of its importance in showing the harmony of scripture, and that even in a most extraordinary event that is only once recorded. It shows principles of divine truth that support, and fall in, and harmonise, with what was only revealed once. This is what I wish to show now.
Well, in the latter part of Dan 10 (indeed as well Dan 11 ), ver. 20, we read, “Then said he” (this is the angel that had to do with Daniel), “Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia.” There you see that it is not quite an unusual thing for angels to contend. Here we have it in still stronger language: “To fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.”
Now, we shall find a little intimation who and what these princes were in the next verse: “But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”
We learn here that Michael was pre-eminently the prince of Israel. In what sense? Not as reigning visibly, but as invisibly espousing the cause of the Jewish people. Now see how this falls in with Michael’s guarding the dead body of Moses, with his being employed by God to contend with the great enemy, so that there should be no misuse made of that dead body. Who had so pre-eminently this duty as the prince of Israel? And as to the angel that was speaking with Daniel, of whom we read a good deal in the previous part of the chapter in so highly interesting a manner and in the most glowing colours – he says, “there is none that holdeth with me in these things” – that is, in opposing the princes of Grecia and Persia. Why? It appears that the princes of Grecia and Persia were not favourable to the Jewish people. In the same way, they had interests connected with Greece and Persia that were opposed to the Jewish people; and in the providence of God the angels are referred to here – angels are the great instruments of providence, the unseen working of God being carried out instrumentally by angels.
This is true now. We are all very much cared for by the angels, more than we are apt to think. We read of them in Hebrews (Heb 1:14 ): “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” So we are indebted to angels now. I do not say it is Michael or Gabriel, but I do say that the angels are acting a special part at this present time in Christianity for all the heirs of salvation. You see that at this time, in Daniel, it was not so much a question about the heirs of salvation; it was a question of the Jewish people. They were the great object of God’s care in their fallen estate. They had been most guilty, but they were beloved. They were carried into captivity by the Babylonian power. And they were going to be the slaves of other powers on the earth; but for all that Michael stood up for them and this other angel who speaks to the prophet Daniel. There were also other angels that were opposed, whom they had to fight.
Well, people may say that it is all very mysterious. Indeed it is, dear brethren. It is not, therefore, incredible, but of very great moment, that we should have our hearts and minds open to believe what we do not see. There is nothing that adds more to the simplicity of a believer than his having his faith exercised upon the things that are unseen as well as those that are eternal, and we ought to feel our indebtedness to God for these things.
Now, if you want a proof even in detail as to this, take the 8th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There you find that the angel tells Philip to go in a certain direction, and he does so; and then we find the Spirit speaks. Not the angel, but the Spirit. I had better refer to it, because there is nothing like the scripture for its precision. Now, in Act 8:26 we read: “And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.” There were two roads, it appears. One was through a populous part of the land, and the other was desert. Well, a desert is not the place an evangelist would choose. The angel, therefore, acting in the providence of God, says to Philip: “You go that desert road.” And it is one of the beautiful features of Philip that he was not a reasoner. Reason is an excellent thing for men who have not got the word of God, and I do not say that there may not be useful reasoning outside divine things, what you may call common sense. But I do say this, that the more the believer can act on divine principles at all times, the better for his soul, and the more to the praise of the Lord. If he is sometimes acting, like a man of the world, on his common sense, and at another time acting on the word of God as a believer, he is in danger of being practically two different persons. And when a man plays the game of two personalities he is very apt to become a hypocrite; there will be a want of reality about the man. We ought only to have one personality. We are bought with a price, not merely for our religious matters, but for everything. We do not belong to ourselves, we are the Lord’s; and, therefore, the more a believer can rise above merely what he will do as a man to that which he loves to do as a saint – the more entirely he keeps to this only, so much the more consistent is he with his profession as a child of God. For why should it not be so? What is to hinder his being a saint in anything at all? Cannot he be a saint when serving in his shop? Cannot he be a saint when in his office? Surely he might, and ought to be. There is nothing to hinder, if he were lively in faith and has the Lord before him. But if, on the contrary, he only looks at the shop or the office – “Well, now,” he says, “it is not Sunday, nor is it the meeting now; I go there as a man.” So there it is. How can he expect anything like faith, or grace, care for Christ and His glory, if that is the case? I deny entirely that we may not be servants of Christ in the commonest things of this life; and this is what, I think, we have all especially to pray for. Of course, we need to pray that we may behave as saints when we come into the assembly, and when we find ourselves at a meeting of any kind; but why we should be off our saintship when we go into business or anything else is another matter, and a very dangerous line to pursue.
Now then, here you see that we have the angel of the Lord providentially dealing with Philip, and Philip acts upon it at once. He does not say, “Ah, I shall not be able to get a congregation, and at any rate I don’t like a little one; I want to have a big one.” He has not a word about little or big; in fact, he was not going to have a congregation. He must be content with one single soul. That soul is precious beyond all calculation to God, if not even to himself. What would all the world be to one if the soul were lost, as the Lord Himself told men, and which they still refuse to believe?
Well then, the angel gives Philip this word, and he hears, and goes without a question. But when he was there – in this road, “this way that goeth down from Jerusalem” – here this Ethiopian stranger in his chariot was met, returning from Jerusalem, and reading the prophet Isaiah. He was not now going up to Jerusalem to get a blessing there. He may have looked for and prayed for that, but he did not get it there. He was returning from Jerusalem unblest, going away from that city, and this was just what the gospel was doing. It was leaving Jerusalem, driven out by unbelief, and this poor Jewish proselyte was going away unblest by the gospel in that city, for he had not found a blessing there. There was a persecution going on there against it. And now, returning, he was reading in his chariot. “Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near and join thyself to this chariot.” Now, why is it the Spirit here? Because it was what concerned the word of God and the soul. The angel said not a word about the soul of the Ethiopian. I do not know that the angel knew anything about it. The angel had to do the bidding of God, “Tell that man to go by the road that is a desert.” He acted on it; the angel was right, and Philip was right, but it was entirely providential. And then comes the spiritual part, and here the Holy Ghost interposes.
Well, we have not now the angel speaking and the Holy Ghost speaking, but we have the angels acting. We may not perhaps know how it is, but an angel interposes many a time to prevent us going in a certain way, when, if there had not been that interposition, we should have been killed. We often go where we had no intention of going, or do not go where we meant to go. When I say “often,” I mean sometimes; throughout our whole lives it would really bear the word “often.” But there is no man but what does from time to time what he never intended to do, perhaps through an impulse given him – he cannot tell how or why – and he goes this way, when he meant to have gone that way.
Here, however, we find that there is another kind of guidance of a more spiritual nature for the soul, prompting (so to speak) the soul to give a word for the Lord. Do you suppose there is no such thing now? Such an idea may be for people who do not believe that the Holy Ghost is come, and that to abide; but He is still here. It is put in Act 8 in an open objective form, but it is meant to teach us that the same thing is true now, although it does not come out openly in the same manner. It is quite true, and this is not the only case. If you compare the 12th chapter of the Acts with the 13th, you will see an angel acting in the one chapter and the Spirit acting in the next. I only mention it because the Acts of the Apostles is surely a history of Christianity, a history of Christians, of what Christians have been used for, and what they are meant to live in. Well, then, here, when it was not a question of Christians or the gospel, but of nations and people, we find the part that the angels play – not merely the holy ones, but the unholy ones. This is the very thing that we find at the grave of Moses, and about that same people, Israel. Michael is the prince who stands up for them opposing the efforts of the enemy against them; and this entirely confirms the principles of God’s word. They are entirely in favour of this extraordinary revelation made in the 9th verse of Jude, and they are found to support and confirm it in the highest degree.
Now, before we go further, I refer to another scripture in Zec 3 . There we have a very interesting removal of the veil that we may see the unseen. We read these words: “And he showed me” (that is, the angel showed Zechariah) “Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him” (ver. 1). There you have the same opposition again. In this case, however, it is the “angel of Jehovah.” I should be disposed to distinguish him from Michael. The “angel of Jehovah” is an altogether peculiar term. The angel of Jehovah is rather the way in which the Lord Jesus is referred to in the Old Testament – not the only way, but a very usual way. The angel of Jehovah every now and then is shown to be Jehovah Himself. I do not mean that He is the only person that is Jehovah. As we read in Deu 6:4 , “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,” that is, it is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Who are the one God that we acknowledge as Christians. They are all three Jehovah, they are all equally Jehovah, and it therefore helps us to understand why He is viewed as “the Angel of Jehovah.” He is Jehovah too, though not the only One that is called Jehovah. This explains what we have here: “He showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And Jehovah” (notice that after speaking of “the angel of Jehovah” it is now “Jehovah”) – “And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan” – the very words that Michael uses to Satan as reported by Jude!
Well, is not this a very strong confirmation, not only of this remarkable opposition between the holy angels and the unholy ones, but also of Satan’s opposition? We find this antagonism in both scriptures, precisely alike. Even Jehovah Himself, instead of merely taunting Satan, says “Jehovah rebuke thee.” The time was not yet for the most terrible rebuke to come, as it will unmistakably when he shall be trodden under foot. He has to be bound for a thousand years in the abyss; he has to be cast into the lake of fire. All these will be part of the ways in which Jehovah will rebuke him, but till that time arrives we see how God meanwhile guards His own purpose; He does not allow Satan to interfere with His design. He allows man to show out his insensibility and his sin, and He chastises him. He does not yet put forth His power to deal with Satan as He will do; but there is that word, “Jehovah rebuke thee,” as He surely will. It is a continual warning from Jehovah, which will be accomplished in its own day, and in various places and various stages. But you can easily see that it would be unseemly to have a mere dispute going on between Jehovah and Satan; and all, therefore, that He puts forth is this solemn warning of what is coming.
Well, the angel repeats that warning to Satan in a very early day, and here, a thousand years after, you have the same truth, the same antagonism even, if not the same persons exactly; but the same spirit all through.
Scripture is perfectly consistent, perfectly reliable. And although Jude was the first one that brought out this fact, it falls in with the other facts of scripture: both in the early days of Moses, in the later of Zechariah, and now in the days of the gospel, in the days of Christianity.
So that nothing can be more complete than the proof that these learned critics are totally ignorant of God, totally ignorant of the Bible, except of the mere surface, the mere letter that kills, and know not the spirit that quickens.
Well, here then you see how beautiful it is that instead of bringing a railing accusation, Michael simply warned Satan with the solemn words: “Jehovah rebuke thee” – “The Lord rebuke thee.” What would railing do? If there are two people railing, a good and a bad man, and the bad man’s railing provokes the good man to rail, the good man goes down to the level of the bad. It does not at all diminish the railing of the other. I should think at any time that a bad man could gain a good degree over the good man in the way of railing. Surely he is much more practised, and very likely more unscrupulous and more malicious, and therefore it sounds stronger to the ear of man. But, you see, that would be a total lowering of even an angel, and how much more of a saint, I might say. Here we have the beautiful conduct of the angel as a pattern to the saint, that we be not provoked, nor, when we are reviled, revile again, but act as the Lord Himself acted. He committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously. Well, that is what Jehovah will do; He will judge righteously, but the time is not yet come for its manifestation.
Jud 1:10 , Jud 1:11 , Jud 1:12 , Jud 1:13 .
“But these rail at whatever things they know not; but whatever they understand naturally, as the irrational animals, in these things they corrupt themselves (or, perish). Woe unto them! because they went in the way of Cain, and rushed greedily into the error of Balaam’s hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah” (vers. 10, 11).
“But these speak evil” – referring now to the persons who, notwithstanding that they had been baptised and had taken their place in the church, were now yielding to every form of corruption, were abandoning the very things that they professed. I do not say that they were outside. This is the difference between Jude and John. When we come down to John’s Epistle they went out; but the corrupting thing in Jude is that there they are poisoning others.
Now it is remarkable that in the Second Epistle of Peter we have only Balaam, and Michael we have not at all; so that nothing can be more superficial than the idea that the one writer has copied the other. It is true that there is much that is common to both Epistles, but the differences between Jude and Peter are the striking thing; the points of resemblance are easily accounted for. In the position in which Jude and Peter were, there must have been the closest friendship, and a very near companionship; and there must have been strong links of love between these two elder servants of the Lord. Would they not communicate their thoughts and judgments ta each other, even if they are looked at as servants of God? This is nothing, therefore, at all surprising. Nothing more likely than that Peter should communicate a good deal to Jude, and, on the other hand, that Jude should communicate a good deal to Peter; and, besides, the Spirit of God giving them to look at the same, or kindred evil, would give them similar judgments and thoughts. You find that in people who have never met or spoken to one another, if they have to do with the same evil, they often say things very much alike; substantially alike they are sure to be, if guided by the Spirit of God, but there are often surprising verbal resemblances. But this is not where the beauty and the striking nature of the two Epistles of Jude and of Second Peter show themselves. It is in the differences between them.
Now Peter is particularly occupied with wicked teachers – men that privily brought in, what he calls, “heresies,” or sects. The word “heresy” in scripture means “a sect.” It never means heterodoxy, as we use the word in its modern sense. That is not the scriptural sense at all. No doubt in the sect there might be heterodoxy, and there might be a sect without heterodoxies, or there might be one with a great deal of heterodoxy. So that “sect” admits of all kinds, or shades, of evil and error; but Peter is looking particularly at false teachers, and these false teachers covetous men; greed of gain is one marked feature which he specifies. Well now, where could you get an Old Testament example of greed so marked as Balaam? Consequently, we find Balaam in Peter, just where it should be. It falls in entirely with his purport, and with that Second Epistle and second chapter.
But here, Jude, in this very much shorter Epistle – and far more compact, far more compressed, and far more vehement – writes as in a tempest of hatred of all these bad men. Indeed, I do not know stronger language. Some do not like strong language. But that should entirely depend upon how it is used. Strong language against what is good is infamous, but against what is bad is thoroughly right; and I do not know stronger language anywhere than in this very Epistle of Jude in which he speaks out against railing. But strong language and railing are not the same thing. Railing is abuse of what is good; but here we have the pithiest, the most vehement, and most cutting exposure of what is evil; and instead of this being a thing to regret, it is a thing that we ought to feel and go along with heartily. But I know it does not suit the present age. The present age is an age for trying to think that there is nothing so good but what there is bad in it, and nothing so bad but what there is good in it. The consequence is that all moral power is at a deadlock, and people have no real, burning love for what is good – only a calm, quiet, lukewarm state. They are neither strong for good nor strong against evil; and that is a state which, I believe, the Lord hates – at any rate, it does not agree with either Peter or Jude.
“Woe unto them! because they went in the way of Cain, and rushed greedily into the error of Balaam’s hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.” In the Epistle of Peter there is not a word about Cain, not a word about Korah. But here you see that Jude, having a different object, compresses in this most wonderful verse – for it is a most wonderful verse – an amount of moral truth, spiritual truth, divine truth, that was here entirely departed from, grace being altogether hated and abused. All this is found in this short verse. He goes up to Cain.
“These are spots (or, hidden rocks) in your love-feasts, feasting together, fearlessly pasturing themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumnal trees without fruit, twice dead, rooted up; raging sea-waves, foaming out their own shames; wandering stars for whom hath been reserved the gloom of darkness for ever” (vers. 12, 13).
I cannot conceive any but an inspired man venturing to use such decided and solemn language about those that were within the church. That is a marked point of the Epistle. Peter looks at the unrighteousness of man generally, even since Christianity is come, because he is occupied simply with iniquity. This of course is common to both writers; but Jude looks specially at those who took the place of salvation, those that were gathered to the name of the Lord. In this latter case, therefore, the matter had yet more seriousness for the spiritual mind. There is nothing more dangerous than a departure from the faith, the Christian faith. It is not only what man is and has done, but also what grace has made known, for which we are responsible, most of all if we turn from it in unbelief. What is so evil as apostasy?
There are many things that cause truth to lose its power with men. Nothing hastens it more than moral disorder in ourselves, which results from forgetting or abusing grace. We turn our backs on God’s authority, as well as our relation to our Lord Jesus; this is followed by our taking up objects that are loved so as to become practically our idols. It is clear that these things have been substantially so from the beginning, as it is also clear from this Epistle that things will go on worse and worse, until the Lord comes in judgment. As to this point we shall have to weigh what is yet stronger than what we have already considered, when it will be ours to seek a divine impression of the words already read. Manifestly they are of the darkest character and full of energy.
Observe here the word, “Woe.” I do not know it anywhere in the New Testament except in the very different application which the apostle makes to himself, if he did not make the glad tidings known (1Co 9:16 ). Here it is, “Woe unto them.” I am not of course speaking of the Gospels, but of the Epistles; where the Spirit of God is testifying of the Saviour and His work to man, or dealing with those who bear the Lord’s name. In the Gospels, even our Lord could not but say, “Woe”; but then He was warning those that represented a favoured nation, which was then through unbelief passing under divine judgment. The same One Who began His ministry with Blessed, blessed, blessed, ended it with Woe, woe, woe! Nothing was further from His heart than to pronounce that sentence, but as He said, so was He to execute it in due time. He pronounced it as a Prophet when on the earth, if peradventure they might take it to heart, and He will pronounce it as a Judge on the great white throne when heaven and earth pass away.
What, then, is the explanation of this utterance of Paul, “Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel”? Paul, who had been a poor deluded soul, by the grace of God had a fearful warning to do His will in preaching, but he does not say “Woe” to them, like Jude. He might have had his great fears for some when he let the Corinthians know how possible it was for a man who preached the gospel nevertheless to become a reprobate (1Co 9:27 ). I think there is no doubt that that word “reprobate” means one lost; because salvation does not go with preaching, it goes with believing; and it is quite possible for those who preach to destroy the faith which once they preached. We have known that ourselves from time to time, and it has always been so. But the apostle had such a solemn sense of his responsibility to proclaim the gospel to perishing souls everywhere, that “Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel.” Yet he preached it in the spirit of grace beyond any man that ever lived. Here, however, in Jude it is a very different case. “Woe unto them,” he says, “for they have gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.”
It is a most remarkable picture of the history of Christendom on its blackest side. There cannot be anything more graphic. It is not the mere order of history. If it were the order of history then the error of Balaam would be put last. It is a moral order, the order of men’s souls. It is what presented itself to the apostle in the Holy Ghost. Jude begins with the first root of what is wrong, and I think he is referring to a man (Cain) that ought to be a brother in affection, and who ought to have been a holy brother, because he took the place of being a worshipper. Cain brought his offering to Jehovah, and it was that very bringing of his offering to Jehovah that brought out his wickedness. How little people know what may be the turning-point of ruin for their souls! Cain no doubt went forward with confidence and with a step of assurance in his offering of fine fruit and other productions of the earth that he had cultivated, no doubt, with care. We may be sure he had chosen the very best because man would not fail in that. A man of the world is often very careful indeed as to outward appearances. Cain sees nothing defective in the offering itself – in the materials that composed the offering; but there was this vital defect which completely ruined him, that there was no faith. There is no mention of either God on the one hand, which must be, nor, on the other hand, was there any judgment of his own sinfulness. He failed therefore completely as to the inner man, for God never calls upon men who put on any appearance before Him. This is what was done here; perhaps no great depth of it, but still Cain took the place of a worshipper and he brought his offering to Jehovah, with no consciousness of his own ruin by sin, nor of God’s grace, or of the need of it. But that was not all.
On the same occasion, Abel brought his offering, which was acceptable; his offering was of the first-born of the flock. Not only was it blood that he offered, the acknowledgment of the necessity of death, and of the Saviour to meet his sins, but there was also the sense of the excellency of the Saviour before God – he brought “of the fat thereof.” Consequently there was a most decided effect in the case of Abel when he brought his offering before God. His very name shows what was very true of his character, no confidence in himself, for the word “Abel” refers to that which passes away like smoke, whereas “Cain” has the signification of “acquisition,” very much like the word “gain” in our language. Abel was a man entirely dependent upon grace, upon the Seed of the woman of whom he had no doubt heard over and over again from both father and mother, with other truths which he had never forgotten. God took care that these truths should be most prominent from the very earliest day, but it made no impression on Cain, and the reason was because he had never judged himself before God, and had no sense of his real need whatever. The opposite of all this was true of Abel, and his offering Jehovah accepted. This at once drew out the character of Cain; plain enough before to God, but it now came out openly in his hatred of his brother. What had his brother done to arouse that wickedness? You may be sure that the general character produced by faith in Abel had shown itself in every way of tender affection to his elder brother; but Cain could not brook that God should accept Abel and his offering, and not look at Cain’s. Nevertheless God deigned to expostulate with him and his lack of faith, in order to save him, if it could be, from what his wicked heart was rushing into. But no; Cain failed both before God and man, and what is more, before his brother. Now this is the first great beginning of the ruin of Christendom, and this showed itself in early days. We find such a thing quite common in our own days. We cannot doubt but that there was a powerful impression made on the world by the new life and ways of real Christians; yet there always were persons who have not only no sympathy with God’s love, but who even despise it, and who are irritated by it, more especially if they are dealt with faithfully by those that know it. This is another reason why our minds are blinded towards our brothers. There comes a still worse feeling towards God, but this order was reversed in Cain’s case. In the root of the matter, I suppose that all evil feeling towards one another springs from a previous feeling towards God. Our feeling in the presence of God breaks out in the presence of one another. Certainly this was the case with Cain.
Here we find the first woe. “Woe unto them I for they have gone in the way of Cain.” It is a departure from faith, it is a departure from love, it is a departure from righteousness. It was the spirit of a worldly man, and therefore he was the first man who began open worldliness. Before that time there was great simplicity. It would be very untrue to say that there was the least of what was savage in Adam and Eve. There was everything that was sweet and beautiful in what God gave them; but still there were not the delights of civilisation, there was none of those things that people seem particularly to enjoy in modern times. It cannot be wise to disguise from our eyes that the progress of worldliness is enormous. I do not doubt that all the recent discoveries of gold and silver have greatly added both to the covetousness of men, and the desire for “display” one before another according to their means; whereas Christianity has nothing at all to do with “means”; it has everything to do with faith. If we care to do so there is always a use for what God gives, that is, to use it to His glory; but to turn it all to a selfish account, or to a display before others, is a mere vulgar kind of selfishness. This is the kind of thing that we find in Cain. There were, of course, the pleasures of stringed and wind instruments from the very beginning of civic life, and there was also then the beauty of poetry, which began, no doubt, rather poorly. It was all man, and man’s reasoning. This is all man’s enjoyment, and it is practically very much what we have at the present day. No doubt many things have been invented since the early times. There is always development in human things, and there is our development in divine things, but there is no obedience in development. There is nothing divine in development, but there is obedience in doing what the Lord sets before us in His word; yet the moment you add to that word in any way, or take away from it, it is the reverse of God’s teaching. It is setting up to be wiser than God, and this we can do without His power. All this idea that we can do something that will do His work better is the work of unbelief, and is an idea destructive of a Christian’s peace, and destructive of the simple principle of obedience contained in the word of God. Oh, what a privilege it is to own and teach this principle! to hear and do His will! We are always learners, and should we not always be coming to a better knowledge of the word by faith? Where there is not faith we do not come to this knowledge.
However, we see in the case of Cain a very fit and proper beginning of the woe that is coming on and the terrible sin that calls for the woe. Now the solemn thing is that it also refers to the present time. Evil never dies out, but gets darker and more opposed to God – becomes more hardened against God, without the least compunction of conscience.
Taking events out of mere historical order so as to make them exactly suit the truth, we have, as the next thing, the case of Balaam. The incident which brought out the nature of Balaam and the fact of his being a typical enemy of God is a further sample of what was to be in Christendom. This was when he uttered the most glorious truths; and I suppose, they were the only truths which he had ever uttered in his life. Well, Balaam was drawn to curse Israel, and he was induced to do so by the offers of gold and silver and honour of every kind. And I will even say that he tried to make out that he did not care for money; he said he was entirely above such a paltry consideration. The sin of Balaam is a very solemn thing. He went out to sin, he went out to meet (as our translators have put it) Jehovah – to “meet the Lord,” but there was nothing of “the Lord” in it, the words being merely added (Num 23:15 ). The fact is, he went to meet the devil, whom he had been accustomed to meet. He went out to seek enchantment – that is the devil, of course. Our translators have put in “the Lord” (Jehovah), but the fact is it was the enemy of the Lord, the source of all Balaam’s wickedness and wicked power. Balaam knew that it was a divine power that compelled him to speak about what he had no thought of speaking about; but when he did so, his vast capacity for eloquence went along with his speaking.
God did not refuse to allow this man’s mind to be displayed. This is the way in which God sometimes works by all the writers He employs. The man must be uncommonly dull not to see a difference of style in comparing the different books of the Bible. If it were merely the Spirit of God it would be the same style in all, but it is the Spirit of God causing a man to bring out the truth of God and to give it out with that style and feeling which should justly accompany it. So in the case of Balaam: although he was much moved by the thought of dying the death of the righteous, yet there was not one single working of his soul in communion with God. He was the enemy of God, and the one who came to curse the Israel of God, but he was compelled to give utterance to most glorious predictions. The wonderful effusions of this wicked prophet glorified the coming of the Lord Jesus. There is something of that kind now in Christendom. Sometimes the most wicked of men can preach eloquently, and what is extraordinary too, God has often used the words of unconverted men for the conversion of others. I have no doubt that this is the case at the present time, and it has always been so. Of course, it is altogether one of the side features of ruin. The normal manner is for those that are saved to be the messengers of salvation to others.
The error of Balaam was that he was the willing instrument of the devil to destroy Israel, and as he could not curse them he did not give it up, yet it was a vain attempt to do so. Jehovah turned it into a blessing. Balaam thought to employ the women of Moab to draw the Israelites after idolatry. He could not turn Jehovah away from Israel, so he tried to turn Israel away from Jehovah. I have no doubt a great many souls throughout Christendom have been converted by these utterances of Balaam. Balaam’s eyes were fixed upon Israel – he wanted to damage them; they were the people he hated, they were the persons he wished to bring down, they were the persons he maligned and misrepresented with all his might, but he did not know that they were the people of Jehovah. But God knew.
Then with regard to Moses and Aaron: Moses represented God, and Aaron represented the intercession of the grace of God; but Korah would not submit to such a thing for a moment (Num 16 ). In the case of Korah, what makes it the more atrocious is that he had a very honourable place; he belonged to the highest rank of the Levites, to that honoured section of the Levites to which Moses had belonged. Moses had first the call of God, Who lifted him up, beyond all question; but Korah belonged to the most honoured of the three families of the Levites who were servants or ministers of the sanctuary, and, as I have said, Korah belonged to the highest of the Levites; but nothing satisfied him. Why? Because he hated that Moses should have a place that belonged to him beyond any other. Satan blinded his eyes, which he always does so that people may feel like this. Korah’s object was to achieve what pertained only to Moses and Aaron. There are always many good reasons for bad things, and the reasons sound well, but they are words that strike at God and at Christ. There was a punishment not only of Korah but also of his family, other Levites, and all their families. And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up in a way that had never happened on any other occasion since the world began. There may have been something resembling it, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, where it rained fire and brimstone and consumed the wicked, but the converse was the case here. The earth opened and swallowed them up. We find further a remarkable thing: the children of Korah were not consumed. He was the leader of the rebellion against Jehovah, but God in the midst of His judgment showed mercy to the sons. They did not perish through the plague that afterwards set in amongst the congregation. These sons of Korah are referred to in the Psalms, for there is the fact recorded that there are “the sons of Korah,” and the right persons to sing such psalms. Well, all these things perish that do not depend upon the grace of God – things like the error of Korah, things that war against God, that cause all those uprisings of falsehood. I think all such things such as the Oxford movement, are wrong. I do not mean the Ritualistic one only, which is extremely vulgar. But what is the error of the Oxford movement? It is very nearly the same error as Korah’s. Korah wanted to be priest as well as minister. That kind of thing is what men are doing now who maintain that they are sacrificing priests. It is true that the sacrifice is a perfect absurdity: the sacrifice is the bread and the wine. How could this be a sacrifice? If they called it an offering it would be a better term; but they not only call it a sacrifice, but they fully believe that Christ personally enters the bread and the wine. Therefore they are bound to worship the “elements,” as they call it. Such an idea is lower than heathenism, for the heathens never eat their God. These men are sanctimonious and exceedingly devoted to the poor. Yes, and they are most zealous in attending their churches, and in attending to their monstrous developments. This is of the same character as that described with reference to Korah. But the only sense in which these men should preach is when they become really sons of God, redeemed Christians, because that is the only sense in which they will be received; but all this false doctrine of the Oxford School denies that all Christians are priests, and infringes and overthrows the real work of Christ, and substitutes this continual sacrifice, which is a sin. So that no wonder Jude says, “Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.”
Then note the tremendous words that follow: “These are spots in your love-feasts.” Think of it. There were such men at that time in the church. Therefore we ought never to be surprised at anything evil that may break out in the world; the only thing is for believers to fight the good fight of faith. There is another rendering – “Hidden rocks in your love-feasts, feasting together, fearlessly pasturing themselves; clouds” they are, and it should be noted they are “without water,” without the real work of the Spirit of God, the rich refreshment of it – “carried along by winds.” As I said before, I will not deny that God may use any person in a solemn way which is thought to be a good deal of honour in the priesthood, but it is deadly work for themselves who preach. “Autumnal trees without fruit, twice dead, rooted up; raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shames: wandering stars for whom hath been reserved the gloom of darkness for ever.”
May God preserve His saints, and may we by watchfulness and prayer be carried safely through such dangers as these.
Jud 1:14 , Jud 1:15 .
“And Enoch, seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, [the] Lord came amid His holy myriads, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly [of them] of all their works of ungodliness which they ungodlily wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners spoke against him” (vers. 14, 15).
This is a remarkable utterance, for which we can only account as being in the power of the Holy Ghost.
There is a traditional book of Enoch in the Ethiopic language, which appears to have been known in a Greek form now long lost. We have not got the Greek, but learned men have endeavoured with all possible zeal to try and make out that Jude quotes from this uninspired book; for the book is evidently one of Jewish tradition, and from internal evidence it would seem that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. But there is another thing that appears, I think, to anyone that reads it with, not merely learning, but with spiritual understanding, which is, that it differs essentially in this very verse, supposed by some to be quoted from it, from what Jude has here given us by the Spirit of God.
But how was Jude enabled to quote the words of Enoch, who was taken up to heaven before the flood – and nothing can be plainer than that he does give it as Enoch’s words? “Enoch prophesied,” he says. Well, I think that to us who know the power of the Spirit of God there is no real difficulty in the matter. It is all the same to Him to record what took place three thousand years ago as it would be to record what took place at the time the apostles lived. It may be a little more difficult to those who doubt this power, if they do; but we are the last who ought to do so.
The fact is, that no tradition has any value beyond man, but a prophecy necessarily, if it is a true one, comes from God. We have no intimation that it was conveyed in any written form, and it was quite possible for the Holy Ghost to have given it again to Jude. I do not at all venture to say that it was so; we really do not know, but we do know, however Jude got it, that it is divine. We know that it is given with absolute certainty, and that it possesses God’s authority.
There is a peculiarity when it says, “Enoch also, the seventh from Adam.” People have made somewhat of that because they do not understand it. But it is very simple. There was more than one Enoch.
There was an Enoch before this one – an Enoch the son of Cain. I do not see any ground to imagine something peculiar and mystical in this. At any rate, if there be such, I confess I do not know what it is. But I do know that there is a plain and sufficient sense to distinguish this Enoch, and to explain how he could prophesy. We should not look for prophecy in a son of Cain. But that Enoch taken up to heaven in a most remarkable way – more so, in some respects, than the case of any other man; more so than Elijah, though that was a miracle of similar import and character – that Enoch should be the medium of prophecy we can quite understand, for he walked with God, and was not. It was not that he died, but “he was not,” because he was taken up to God; yet before he left the world, he prophesied. We can hardly doubt that he prophesied about the people of his own day. Prophecy always takes its start from what is actually present, and has a hold in the consciences of those then living. The object was to warn of the terrible consequences of evil that was persisted in, and how the evil then appearing would assuredly be judged of God in due time. But the Spirit of God also launches out to the end from the beginning. This is the common character of all prophecy. We find it throughout all the prophets at any rate. I do not, of course, say that it was always the case where the prediction was about something of a merely present nature, but it was so in the cases of those moral pictures which are not bound to any particular time or person. We can quite understand these being made the vehicle for the Spirit of God to look on to the time of judgment when it would not be providential action of the Lord, such as the flood, for instance, but – much more than any acting after that figurative manner – His real personal coming in judgment.
Now, in that Ethiopic book which I have seen, and of which I have the text and English translation by the late Archbishop Laurence, as well as a French version of the work by a very learned Romanist (perhaps a more excellent scholar than the Archbishop I have named, at any rate one more familiar with Oriental languages) – they both agree in what is totally different from what we have here; and what makes it more remarkable is, they agree in asserting an error which is almost universal now in Christendom.
You are aware that the general view of all Christians who derive their thoughts from traditions, creeds, or articles of faith, is that everyone will be judged alike; and this view falls in quite with the natural thought, particularly of the natural man. It seems to them a very offensive thing that those who are really sinners like themselves, but are believers unlike themselves, should not be judged. It seems, to them, since they think very little of believing, a very hard and unrighteous thing that believers should be exempted from a judgment to which others are fast hastening.
But why? Our Lord puts it in the clearest possible manner in Joh 5 . He there describes Himself in two different lights – one as Son of God, the other as Son of man. As Son of God He gives life. And who are they who get life? Does He not tell us that he “that believes on Him hath life eternal”? It is one of those remarkable, short and pithy statements of the Gospel of John. In one form or another it runs through the entire Gospel, I might almost say from the first chapter, though we may not have the literal words, but the same fundamental, substantial sense. And it goes on all through this Gospel, to Joh 20 certainly, if not to Joh 21 . And the same great truth re-appears in his First Epistle; that life belongs to him that believes on the Lord Jesus. Just as surely as we inherit death naturally from Adam, so now there is another man who is also God, and being God as well as Man, He has entirely set aside for us the judgment of our sins by bearing it Himself. But that is not all. He gives us this new life which is proper to Himself that we might be able to bear fruit for God now. There must be a good life to bear good fruit. And there is no good life to bear fruit that God counts good except Christ’s life, and all that are of faith have received that life every Old Testament saint, as really as a New Testament saint. They had faith, they had life, they testified for God. Their ways were holy, which they could not have been had they not a life to produce this holiness; and so it is now.
Well, accordingly, those that believe on Him, the Son of God, receive life. If I reject His divine glory, that is, that He is the Son of God in this high and full sense, then I have not life; because He only gives it to those that believe. But do those who remain in unbelief therefore escape? No, He is Son of man; and this is just where their want of faith broke down. They could see that He was a man, and as they had no faith to see anything deeper, they only regarded Him as Son of man. In this very character the Lord will judge them. He will judge them as the Man Whom they despised. They will behold Him as the Man of everlasting glory. Not merely a divine person, but a Man; and in that very quality – as Son of man – He will judge them.
Now, there would be no sense in, or reason for, judging the believer, even if it were not said by our Lord that the believer shall not come into judgment. Because, what would he come into judgment for? If any go into judgment, it is a reality. It must be so if God were to enter into judgment with even believers. Were they never guilty of sins? And if these sins come into judgment, they cannot escape punishment; and if they are judged, they are lost. But if Christ has borne their sins, where would be the abject or wisdom of putting them on their trial after they are acquitted and justified? And we are justified now by faith. All believers are. Every Christian is. It is not a question of peculiar views. I hate peculiar views. Peculiar views are the errors of men. It would be a most shameful thing to count God’s truth to be “peculiar views.” The only thing a Christian should care for is God’s truth. It is only the language of an enemy to count that “peculiar views.” If there are those that try to blacken it and call it peculiar views their blood must be on their own heads. The language is the language of an adversary. We have nothing to do with running after new views or innovations of any kind, and God forbid that we should care for one single thing that is an innovation. I call an innovation anything that is a departure from God’s word.
It is not the antiquity of sixteen or seventeen centuries, but we go to the very beginning, to the apostles, and to the Lord Himself; and there is the source from which we may draw and know for ourselves immediately, just as truly as if we had the apostles here before us. The apostles were certainly not more inspired when they spoke and preached than when they wrote; but it was what they wrote that was made to convey down the stream of ages divine truth with the utmost possible certainty. There is a great advantage in having what is written. You can come and come again. Even if you listened to an apostle, or to the Lord, you might forget. You might slip away from His words and put in some of your own. There is nothing more common than this every day, even with very accurate people; they do not carry absolutely every word. It is too serious a thing not to have the word of God, and it is of the utmost importance that we have it written. What we want is the truth first-hand – from the people inspired to give it – and this is just what we have. And the simplest man is responsible to weigh and consider it.
It may be said he is a weak soul. Well, we are all too apt to think too much of ourselves. Especially, if men have a little ability, they are apt to overestimate what they have. There is nothing more common than this, and nothing more dangerous. Whereas, if a man is really a weak soul and does not think much about himself there is far more readiness to learn; unless he is an obstinate man, who, even though he knows but very little, thinks a deal of himself. There is nothing so dangerous as that, especially when such a one lifts himself up against the word of God. When a man is brought to God, he is made nothing of in his own eyes. Would to God we always stayed there, with the sense of our own nothingness! Would to God that it did not evaporate by our getting peace! There is always a danger of a person forgetting that there was a time when he counted nothing that he thought, said, or felt, was worth thinking about. We are meant to keep that humility always. The best and truest form of real humility is the sense of the presence of God and of the infinite value of the word of God. There is nothing so humble as bowing to God’s authority, there is nothing so humble as obedience – obeying God. And at the same time, nothing gives greater courage, nothing gives greater confidence, nothing gives greater firmness; and this humility is exactly what we want – to be nothing in our own eyes, and to have perfect confidence in God’s word. And faith should produce this in every believer.
Not only, then, does the Lord lay down that the believer, “comes not into judgment,” but He declares what the end will be. Not that there will be only one resurrection. Were there but one resurrection, it might be no wonder that there will be only one judgment; but to confirm the fact that there will be no judgment of the believer – no sitting in judgment on him to decide his lot for eternity – there are two resurrections spoken of in that very same passage in Joh 5 ; and I would commend that chapter to anyone who has not duly weighed it. There it is shown that there will be a “resurrection of life” for those that have life for their souls already; there will be a “resurrection of judgment” for those that have not life but sins, and not merely sins but unbelief, the refusal of that life. They rejected the Son of God! For them there is judgment, and for them there is a special resurrection at the close of all. For those that have life now, in the Son, there is “the first resurrection,” a life-resurrection. Other saints, too, will share in this, for though not at the same moment, their resurrection, nevertheless, will have this character. All that are Christ’s who are in their graves when the Lord comes will rise together, and the living that are on the earth at that time will be changed, while others who die afterwards will follow, as we learn from the book of Revelation which is my reason for guarding the statement. They all have a resurrection of life, except those that do not die, and will be brought into the change without resurrection; but their change will be equivalent to resurrection, so that it may be all called, in a certain way, a “resurrection of life.”
But there is also a “resurrection of judgment” for all those that despise Christ, for all that are sinners against God, for all who have refused the Saviour, from the beginning of the world up to that time; and the resurrection of judgment is at the end of all time. Not so the resurrection of life and the reason why it is not is this – that those who rise in the resurrection of life rise to reign with Christ, before the winding up of all things. The wind up of all will be after all the ages have run their course, so that the last sinner may be included in that awful resurrection – “the resurrection of judgment.” We need not call it a “resurrection of damnation,” because the word used is distinct from that. In effect it comes to that, but it is not the force of the word. It is always better to stand to the exact word of God, even if we do not understand it. We owe it honour and reverence, whether we understand it or not. His word must be right, it must be wise and the best, the only one that is really good and reliable absolutely.
This may seem a long preamble, but it is necessary, perhaps, to make the force plain of what I am going to remark here.
In the spurious book of Enoch, from which the learned people maintain that Jude quoted, the doctrine taught is that the Lord “comes with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment upon them.” There you see is the error that betrays the devil in the forger, for from this very verse, I do not in the least doubt that that document has been forged. It has every mark of having been written, subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, by a Jew who still buoyed himself up with the hope that God would stand by the Jews.
And so He will in the end, but in a way totally different from what he, the writer, supposed. For there is no true acknowledgment of Christ. He is simply acknowledged as the Messiah from a Jewish point of view, but there never will be deliverance for the Jew in looking for the Messiah according to their thoughts. It is the Messiah of God, the Anointed of Jehovah, the true Messiah that came, and they rejected Him. But when He comes to deliver them by and by they will be brought to say, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” They will then give up all their unbelief, they will welcome Him, and He will come and deliver them, and He will save them out of all that strait of trouble in which they will then be.
But He will not judge His own people. He was judged for them, He bore their judgment on the tree, and He will never judge them. Nor is there one word in the Bible – Old or New Testament – that insinuates in the most distant manner that the Lord will inflict judgment on His own people. That He will judge His people is a common thing in the Old Testament. But that will be, as a King, the judgment of their difficulties, their disorders if there should be any; and He will also vindicate them from their enemies. It is in this sense that He will judge His people.
Moreover, God carries on a moral judgment now in respect to His children. “If ye call on the Father, Who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear.” This is still going on. The Lord dealt with the Corinthians in this way. When they were in such a bad state and profaned the table of the Lord, coming boldly and taking the bread and the wine as if they had been in a good state, the Lord laid His hand on them – some were sick, some fell asleep – were removed by death. All this was a temporal judgment. It is what the Lord does now, and this judgment is for our good and profit.
We see the same thing in a family. It is the judgment that a father carries on in his family, or any person charged with the care of youths put under him – young persons of either sex. Well, there is a judgment for their good. This is a totally different thing from what is called in Joh 5 a “coming into judgment.” It is even a different word employed – a different form of the word. From Psa 143 it is evident that the Old Testament saints knew better than that. At any rate, the Spirit of God gave them better knowledge, for there it says, “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” If God were to enter into judgment with the believer it would be all over with him, because even the believer himself would be bound to say, I do not deserve to be saved. And if God were to look at all the faults in a believer’s life He might say, if that is what I have to look at, I have no reason to save you, you do not deserve it. But the ground of a believer’s salvation is not that he deserves it, but that Christ deserves it for us. Christ has completely met all God’s nature, and, further than that, He has borne all our sins and iniquities in His own body on the tree. God will not judge them again as if they had not been sufficiently borne, as if the judgment at the cross were not an adequate one. God will never say that about what Christ endured, and this is just what faith lays hold of. Therefore, the uniform doctrine of the Bible – of both Old and New Testament – is this, that believers are not to come into that future judgment which the Lord will execute at the close of all things; but because we now have life, and are God’s children, He watches over and cares for us, and carries on a moral judgment; and besides this, the Lord Jesus carries on now a judgment of the church.
We find, besides the Father judging individually His children, that the Lord Jesus takes up the things that pertain to His name among those that are assembled together. He is Head of the church and He has a watchful eye that the things that are done under His holy name should be real, should not be hypocritical, that His name should not be profaned. If our ways are unreal, and we go on badly, He deals with us in the way of discipline, and for the very reason “that we should not be condemned with the world.” There you have the reason. If He did not do so, you might raise a question as to whether they would be lost.
Now then, the author of this spurious Book of Enoch understood not a word of all this. He was not a believer. He was a false man; he would never have forged if he had not been. He was a forger of the worst kind. No forgery is so bad as that which pretends to give us the word of God. It is very bad to be deceitful in anything, but if deceit is carried on in the things of God there is none that is worse in its consequences, there is none that more distinctly dishonours God. And that is the case here.
“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to -“what does scripture say? to “execute judgment upon all.” This is not the saints. The “all” are totally distinct from the saints. The saints had been caught up, and now come with Him Who executes the judgment on all the sinners to be found in that day. “To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all” – to make it perfectly plain who are meant – all “that are ungodly among them.” There it is, to obviate any argument, for there are people who are not great in the truth who are always ready for an argument! Here we see it is “to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them” (that is, these “all”) “of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodlily committed.” And not only ungodly deeds; there is another thing that the Spirit of God attaches great importance to – “hard words which ungodly sinners spoke against Him,” words that gainsay God’s mind, words that say the thing that is false of God. Job’s friends did that. Job himself bowed to God. He had not many words, he made a confession of his folly, he said the thing that was right. But his friends had not spoken the thing that was right of the Lord. I do not think that the Lord was putting the stamp of His approval in the same way on all that Job said. He often spoke haughtily, and unhappily about God, and fretted about himself, but the Lord does not refer to that. Job broke down and confessed his nothingness. His friends did not break down. Job did, and, in consequence, Job was restored, and had to pray for those, his friends, who were not as yet restored.
But here it is plain that ungodly words are just as bad in their own way as ungodly deeds. Sometimes an ungodly word does more harm than an ungodly deed. For instance, an ungodly deed might be an act of unrighteousness in a man, but an ungodly word might be a slurring of Christ. This is worse, and particularly if people receive it. People are quite ready to cry out against an ungodly deed. Even worldly men can very well judge ungodly deeds, and the same people would be deceived by hard and ungodly words against the Lord and His grace and truth.
In this Book of Enoch to which I have referred there is not a word about the “hard speeches.” This shows that the author was simply a natural man; a man who, no doubt, had this phrase before him, but he did not understand it. He evidently did not understand either about the saint or about the sinner. He did not understand about the saints, because he made them objects of judgment as well as the ungodly. It is just like the theologians now. They do not believe what I am now saying. But there is one word, in leaving that subject, that I wish to add. “We shall all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ.” Everything, good or bad, will come out, for the believer as well as for the unbeliever. But that is a very different thing from judgment. This is not called judgment, but “manifestation,” which is not the same thing as judgment. Manifestation of all our ways will be a very good thing for us. How apt we are to overrate ourselves! There may be something that we perhaps flattered ourselves about while we were here alive, and we never saw how foolish we were till risen from the dead and standing before the judgment seat of Christ. There it will all be manifested. Where we thought that we were wise we shall see that we were very foolish. And so in everything where we may have allowed ourselves a little latitude and tried to excuse ourselves, we shall there be obliged to acknowledge it as all wrong. This is for our good. It is a blessing to do it in this life, but it will be all the fullest and richest blessing there. All will be out then. Then we shall know even as also we are known. We shall have no thought different from God’s about a single thing in all our lives. But this is not judgment. Judgment is where a person stands to be tried, and to be convicted of his guilt. This will be the case with everyone who has not been justified by the Lord Jesus Christ and His incomparable work on the cross.
But there is a second point where this forger could not copy the text before him aright. He only speaks of “ungodly deeds.” Hard, ungodlily spoken “words” to him did not seem of very much account, so he left out the ungodly “words.” The first part seemed the only right thing to him. Consequently, he mutilated the scripture. He could not even copy it truly, and thus he has given us a false version of it.
In other words, Jude never got his prophecy of Enoch from a mere tradition, or from this book at all. He got it from God. How, I do not pretend to say. But he did.
Jud 1:16 , Jud 1:17 , Jud 1:18 , Jud 1:19 .
“These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts, and their mouth speaketh swelling things, admiring persons for the sake of profit. But ye, beloved, remember ye the words that were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they said to you, In [the] end of the time shall be mockers walking after their own lusts of ungodliness. These are they that make separations, natural (or, soulish), not having [the] Spirit” (vers. 16-19).
“These are murmurers.” Murmuring is a more serious sin than many think. It could not but be that among Christians there are many things that do not go according to what we like. Suppose it to be even a man of sound wisdom; but if people are not very well founded they are always apt to be disappointed at something in him. It is natural for people to begin to murmur. The Israelites were constantly at that kind of work.
Now, he says, “There are murmurers,” and he adds, “complainers” – not content with their lot (the strict literal meaning of the word). They are persons who like to be something more and greater than they are, than God ever called them to be. They want to be somebody.
“These are murmurers, complainers”; and what is the cause of that? “Walking after their own lusts.” Lust is not to be supposed to be merely gross lusts. There are refined lusts – vanity, pride, ambition; what are all these but lusts? They are all lusts. The lusts of the devil. These are not the same kind of lusts as the lusts of the flesh. Satan was lifted up with pride, and we are warned against falling into the fault or “condemnation” of the devil. It appears that the things mentioned in this verse are very much the same thing: “their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.” They are fond of having a party, particularly if they can number some rich among the party, “because of advantage.”
What I particularly draw your attention to is this. Enoch prophesied of these. I do not know anything more striking than that. There are the same persons now as in Enoch’s day. There can be no doubt that these people lived in the time of Enoch. But Jude carried us on to the coming of the Lord. The people who are on the earth when the Lord comes will be the same kind in their wickedness as in the days of Enoch and of Jude. Evil, you see, goes on. Evil retains its own terrible character – malignancy and rebellion against God, and all self-sufficiency, and all the terrible things that are so entirely opposed to Christ. Enoch prophesied of these and of the judgment coming upon them.
“But ye, beloved, remember ye” – to confirm this – “the words that were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that they told you that there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts” (vers. 17, 18).
Well, we have at least two of these apostles. Surely, that is quite enough. Very likely the other apostles taught the very same things by word of mouth. But we have this warning about these characters, written down by two besides Jude; one the apostle Paul, the other Peter in both his Epistles. In his First, Peter says that the time is coming when judgment must begin at the house of God, and judgment on just this kind of ungodliness then working up; but in his Second Epistle there is a deal more. And I think that Jude goes still further, and that his Epistle was written after Second Peter, and for this reason, that there is an advance of evil. Peter speaks of unrighteous men, Jude speaks of men that once seemed to have the truth, and through their bad life, bad ways, pride, vanity, or whatever it was, they lost it. That is quite a common thing. By common, I do not mean that any very great numbers break off in this way, but that it is a sin which every now and then breaks out. Why, even since “Brethren” began there have been the most terrible cases of people giving up all the truth. The greatest infidel of modern days was one of the early “brethren.” He was a very clever man, and gave up his fellowship at Balliol to go to the Eastern world, among Arabs and Persians and the like, with the gospel. He seemed to be devoted to the Lord. But even on his way out he betrayed that he was not a true believer at all. How! By doubting about the full proper Deity of the Lord Jesus; and when he came back brethren enquired into it. There had been whispers of it before his return, but then he was out of the way, so that till his return it was not possible to deal with him fairly, or to examine him fully, not merely whispers. When he came back he was seen and written to, and his words were the words of an unbeliever; he was therefore refused any place in our fellowship. After this, he went among the dissenters, who welcomed him most heartily, and he preached in their chapels and was most acceptable among them, particularly as he ran down the “brethren” pretty hotly. At this time, he still appeared to be pious in his outward ways and manner, and still read the Bible. But he gradually gave up everything and gave an account of it in a book which he wrote bearing a very anomalous title indeed, for it would appear that he really never had faith. He was a man who was very impressionable, and he easily took the colour of those with whom he was. He valued and was charmed with the sound of the truth, and thought he had it, but I am afraid he never had. So he lived, and so, I fear, he died. There have been others of no such prominence who have had a similar end; not so marked, perhaps, but as sad. Some had once been in fellowship, and seemed to be very honoured persons for a time, before they were really known. And this kind of thing falls in with what we have here.
There were such persons among them; and not merely the teachers. Peter speaks about teachers, but Jude looks at them more widely; they are evidently responsible even though they are not teachers. If others dishonour the Lord who are not teachers, they are responsible. There is this character in Jude: they are apostate from the truth, and have not gone out of fellowship yet. That is the very thing he says. There they are, although it is likely that no one but Jude who saw these persons could speak of them; and Peter saw them where he was. They appeared fair enough just as there were many such at the time when the person referred to was in fellowship. Many would not believe a word of it. They thought he was a very good man, and that it was a scandal to speak hardly about him. They never could see till the thing came out thoroughly. We are not all “eyes” in the body. We may have an important place. The hand or the foot can do a work that the eye cannot, and there are those who can see far before others; and it is important for people to make use of those who have proved their special competence. Otherwise we are apt to get wrong.
It is an immense thing to say that we have not only teachers now and preachers to spread the truth in spite of their weakness and their liability to err, but we have also those that were kept from error in what they have written, absolutely kept from error; and these are here brought before us as the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They were men of like passions as we are ourselves, but the peculiarity in the case of those apostles and prophets is, that in the midst of their weakness they were preserved – it was not, it is true, like Christ, absolute perfection – but there was the perfect preservation from error in what they wrote. And it was all the more remarkable that this was in one generation only. It was not like the succession that there was in the old dispensation of God. There we have prophets raised up at all times, wherever they were needed; but the great peculiarity for the church and for the Christian is that we have not merely words that were perfect for their purpose, and words that were given faithfully by God in the midst of all the errors of Israel, but now we have a perfect revelation in all respects, by men themselves imperfect, but nevertheless kept and empowered by the Holy Ghost to say the truth without error whatever.
Now, there are two things in the words of the apostles; the first is the mind of God for the glory of Christ; and this we have in all the books of the New Testament. But in the midst of these words, and more particularly in the latter times of giving these words we have the most solemn warnings that are given in any part of the Bible. It was not at all that all these characters of evil came out so that the Christian could discern them, but they came out sufficiently for the apostles to discern them.
Thus we have our lessons for practical guidance in the words of the apostles. They are the persons through whom we have received the full truth of God. There was not an error that ever crept into the church but is provided for here. There is not a good thing that God had to reveal but what is revealed here.
For we are not meant to be inventors, we are not meant to make discoveries, like the men of science. The reason why there are inventions in the arts, and discoveries in science, is, because all is imperfect. But perfection is what marks the word of God – not merely relative perfection, relative to the state of Israel at different times, but – absolute perfection. What brought in absolute perfection? Christ. There is the key to all that is blessed, to all that is most blessed. There is what explains what is most of all peculiar. It was according to Christ that all the truth should be brought out, unstinted, and perfectly providing for everything that might be through the ages that follow down to the present time. And this in order that we might never have to look outside scripture for the proof of any error, and this also for the provision of everything good. All is in the word; this word that we have got. The Old Testament is full of value, but, nevertheless, it is only general. Our special instructions are in the New Testament, for we can easily understand that there was no such thing as a Christian in Old Testament times. They were believers, but not Christians. A Christian is a man who is not merely looking for the promises, but who has the promises – accomplished in Christ. Well, of course, the Old Testament saints had not got this, and the church was an absolutely new thing. It was not merely promises accomplished, but the mystery revealed: the mystery that was hid in God up to that time. There was no revelation of it in the Old Testament whatever. Now it is revealed, and it is given to us. And how? By these perfect writings of the New Testament, that left nothing to desire, nothing for faith to desire; plenty for unbelief to add, still more for unbelief to depart from; but nothing for faith to desire. We have all here, and it is only for our faith to discern it, and to practise it.
Now for this reason all came out in one generation. John, the very last of all, was the one that saw the Lord from the beginning. He was, not only one of the apostles, but, one of the first two that ever followed the Lord Jesus and entered into living relationship with Him here below. And he was kept here, beyond others, in the wisdom of God But we have another, also, of those who were eminently favoured, and were conspicuously used. Although Jude wrote a short Epistle, what a great deal there is in it!
Now, turning to what we have already touched upon – “But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; that they said to you, In [the] end of the time shall be mockers walking after their own lusts of ungodliness”; that there should be, not merely unrighteous men, or lawless men, but, one of the worst features of evil, “mockers.” Why, in the Old Testament, when it was only a question of children that could not resist giving way to their humour – I may call it very bad humour, and very bad manners – but still they mocked the old prophet, they mocked Elisha. And even he the man of grace, was no doubt led of God to call forth the bears that tore them all.
Here we find that it is not little children in their folly (for we know that “foolishness is bound in the heart of a child”), but the case of men who claimed wisdom; and the way they showed it was by “mocking”! “Mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts” – their own lusts of ungodly things. It is rather stronger. Their lust was after ungodliness. This is what characterised their lust. It is not a mere vague term; it is a very succinct term – “lusts of ungodliness.” Now this is an awful thing. And resulting from what? I will not say it results from Christianity, from the truth. God forbid. But it resulted from the fact that they were there, and that their hearts got tired of it, and they became the enemies of it. There is nothing more blessed than a Christian man walking in simplicity. There is nothing more awful than a Christian man who casts off Christianity, and who becomes a mocker after the lusts of his own ungodliness. This is what is described here, and what the writer prepares us for. No one could have believed that in early days.
These mockers once looked fair. They once spoke fairly. They were received, they were baptised; they remembered the Lord Jesus, taking part in the assembly, no doubt. They may have been preachers, very likely; but here it was evident they were given up to their own lusts of ungodliness and they were mockers; accordingly, they therefore turned with the greatest spite and hatred upon that truth that once separated them from the world. They were professedly believers, but it is evident they were in reality the emissaries of Satan. And the Epistles (some of the last in the Bible), as well as the apostles of our Lord, laid down this: that these mockers were to come in the last time. The last time was therefore to be a peculiarly evil time, and it is a very solemn thing that we are in that time most fully now. I do not say that it may not be lengthened – that is entirely a question of the will of God. The lengthening of evil may be Just as much as the lengthening of tranquillity. There is the tranquillity for one, and it may end in greater departure than ever, or it may be the means of repentance, and extrication from these toils of the enemy.
But here at any rate he declares, “These are they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit” (ver. 19). It is important to understand this verse, for there are various kinds of separations mentioned in the New Testament. Sometimes, it is separation within; sometimes, it is separation without; sometimes, it takes the character of parties as yet joined with the rest in outward observances, but their spirit alienated. Those are the persons the apostle refers to in Rom 16 : persons “which cause divisions and stumbling-blocks, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (ver. 17). That doctrine was that we should walk, not only outwardly together but, inwardly, with real love. It is true it may not always be approving of what each may do and say, but with earnest desire that things might go well, and that those even who are in any way caught by the enemy might be delivered.
Now, the persons in Rom 16 were not to be “put away,” but avoided; and the object of that avoiding was to make them feel and reflect upon what they were about. Suppose they were preachers or teachers, avoiding such would be not to invite them, or if they invited themselves, not to accept their offer. Of course, you can understand that they would not like it, unless they were really broken in spirit. In this case all would terminate happily, but if they were bent on doing their own will they ought to be avoided as the apostle says, and if they do not like this avoiding, and grow bitter under it, the effect would be that they would make a division “without” if they could, instead of “within.” They would “go out” themselves, and try and lead away others.
There are these kinds of spirits. First, they have an alienated mind within, and are self-seeking; and because this is blamed by all that have the good of the saints at heart, and the glory of the Lord before them, they resent it strongly, and, instead of breaking down and judging themselves, they become worse, and then it is not a division “within,” but “without,” that they make. The former is called a schism, the latter a heresy. For I particularly press it on every one here who may not have observed it – that “heresy” in scripture does not mean bad doctrine at all. There may be bad doctrine, of course, along with it; but this is rather heterodoxy – strange doctrine. There are proper terms for all forms of evil: falsehood, deceit, blasphemy and the like. But heresy means the self-will that does not care for the fellowship of the assembly in the least, and is so bent on its own object that it goes outside. This is what is called heresy. Now that is what the apostle means in 1Co 11 . He says, “There are divisions (or, schisms) among you. For there must be also heresies (or, sects) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (vers. 18, 19).
But there is no “must be” in reference to heterodoxy. People might remain, and like to remain, with their heterodoxy, but heresy does not mean bad doctrine, although this might go along with it. It means that people might get too hot in their zeal, and, being reproved for their party spirit, they refuse to stand it any longer, and they get away. They break loose from fellowship and form some new thing which has not the sanction of the word of God. That is what, in scripture, is called heresy. The doctrine might be sound enough in a general way. There might be no blasphemies, nor heterodoxy, strictly speaking, but there is the heart entirely wrong and seeking its own things instead of the things of Jesus Christ.
So in the verse before us, “These be they who separate themselves” means those that separate themselves “within,” not “without,” at all. This is very evident from the early part of this Epistle: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (ver. 4). Certain men crept in. They are the same people that Jude is talking about all through. Unawares, they had “crept in,” not “gone out.” Now this is what gives the true force of the words – “those that separate themselves.” We can easily understand it if we bear in mind the Pharisees. The Pharisees never separated themselves from Israel, but the very name of a Pharisee means “a separatist.” They were separatists within Israel. These were separatists within the church, and in both cases it was not going out, but it was making a party of pride and self-righteousness within. And who are they? Ungodly men; these were the men that were proud of themselves; these men who had these wicked lusts. They were the persons who assumed to be pre-eminently faithful; and, I believe, you will generally find that it is so, that, when persons are given up to delusion, they always have a very high opinion of themselves. No matter how violent they may be, no matter how evil in their spirit, they claim to be more particularly faithful, and they have no measure in their denunciation of every one that stands in their way. This is exactly the class here described.
“These be they who separate themselves.” And what sort of men were they? “Sensual.” The word “sensual” is important to understand. Every man has got a soul, converted or not. Now, when we believe, we receive a nature that we never had before; we receive life in Christ. These men here described had nothing but their natural soul. They had not received life in Christ. They were merely “natural” men. “Sensual,” in our language, is very often taken to mean people who are abandoned to immoral ways. These people may have been so, but it is not the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is that they were just simply “natural” men. It is the same word which, in 1Co 2:14 , is translated “natural man,” and contrasted with the “spiritual man.” So he adds here, “not having the Spirit.”
Now, having not the Spirit is to lack the great privilege of a Christian. This is the great difference between a believer now resting on redemption, and an Old Testament believer. They were waiting for the Spirit in the days of the Messiah. Although the Messiah is rejected, the Holy Ghost has been poured down on us, but not on those that are still waiting for the Messiah. The Jews are still waiting, and have not the Spirit. These men, although they had taken their place in the church, had not the Spirit. They were natural men. We are therefore given this further development of the terrible evil that had come in even then, although the great mass of the saints, you may be sure, very little understood it, very little perceived it; and therefore it was of the greatest moment that the apostles should. And that there should be inspired men, or, at any rate, inspired instruction given upon what people otherwise would not have been in the least prepared for, and would have counted it a very fierce and terrible picture without any good ground for it; they would think it was making the worst of everything instead of the best. But the Spirit of God does give the truth just as it is.
Jud 1:20 , Jud 1:21 .
Well, now we come to a very comforting word. “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in [the] Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in [the] love of God, awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto life eternal” (vers. 20, 21).
So then we are not to be cast down, we are not to be disheartened, even by these terrible pictures of evil. They are revealed in order that we should not be deceived, that we may really know what the actual state of Christianity is before the eye of God, instead of yielding to false expectations and wrong and imperfect judgments of our own. But even in the face of all that, there is this call to these beloved saints to build up themselves on their most holy faith. This is very carefully worded. There is nothing at all said in this Epistle about leaders, or guides, or rulers, or preachers, or teachers either. In a general way, as far as there were any, they have a very bad character, not of course that all who preached or taught were so, but that there were many of this class that were so especially. The saints themselves are here exhorted directly.
They are not to give up their privileges, or to imagine, that because it is a day of such abounding evil, they are not to be very happy. They are comforted with this; that the blessing is perfectly open to them, and they are called to have more faith than ever. There is no time when faith shines brighter than in the dark day, and there is no time when love is more evidently discerned than when there are not many to love, not many that do love, but where there is the reign of selfishness and indifference, and people care for other objects, and put them before that which is imperishable.
“But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith.” This is the only place in all the New Testament where faith is called our “most holy faith.” It might have been thought that when things are so evidently wrong we must not be too stringent, that we must not be too exacting, that we must not look for such care as on the day of Pentecost. Why, so far from that being so, we require more care. And instead of its being now called merely the holy faith, or precious faith, Jude calls it, “your most holy faith.” The saints, in short, are encouraged to cleave to the truth in all its sanctifying power. We cannot think too much of “the faith of God’s elect.” I am not speaking now of faith looked at in the saint, but of “the faith” looked at in itself. It is the thing that we believe, which is the meaning of it here. It is not crying up individuals, but what these individuals receive from God. That is what he calls it – “the faith.” There is a great difference between faith and “the faith.” Here it is “the faith.” Faith is a quality of you, and me, and every believer. But that is not the sense here, which is, “the faith once delivered to the saints,” as he says in this very Epistle.
Well, thus you must look at it. When it came, you may say, It came down from God out of heaven, revealed through the apostles – Christ Himself of course in particular. There, was “the faith “: what we are called to believe; that which separated us to God from everything here below. So here, we have the same faith, only – it is not now said, “once for all delivered to the saints,” although this remains true. Here it is called “most holy.” What! has it not got tainted? Has it not got lowered now? Woe to those that say so! “The faith” is just the same faith now as on the day of Pentecost, the same faith that Peter preached, and also Paul, and all others of the apostles. And we have Peter and Paul, i.e. we have their words. We have the most careful words they ever spoke. We have the words that they were inspired to write from God. We do not therefore merely listen, as some of the early fathers talk about a man that saw the apostle and heard the apostle; and it appears that the man that did so was a poor foolish old man! Very likely. Well, and what have you got by putting a poor foolish old man between you and the apostle? Little or nothing. But Peter and Paul and Jude were not foolish, and whatever they may have been in themselves, there was the mighty power of the Holy Ghost Who gave them the truth of God absolutely intact; and here it is His word now, and we come into personal contact with it by faith. We that believe receive that “most holy faith,” and what is more, we are called, every one, to act upon it now.
And what are we to do with it? It is not only that we impart it to others, we “build up ourselves on our most holy faith.” Nothing, therefore, can give a more delightful picture of the resources of grace for as bad a time as can well be conceived as what we have here. “Ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith”; it is not to be on a little bit of the faith, not on the faith that was given to you. through the intervention of a poor foolish old man. No, here it is, fresh from God, kept fresh and holy, unmixed with anything that could lower it.
“Praying in the Holy Ghost.” What can be better than this? There were men who spoke with tongues in the Holy Ghost. Do you think that is half as good as “praying in the Holy Ghost”? Why, the apostle Paul says that the men that spoke with tongues in the Holy Ghost were to hold their tongue, unless there were an interpreter there present so as to give what they spoke in a tongue in a form intelligible to others. It was a real power of the Spirit of God, but it was not to be exercised unless there were an interpreter. But think of the apostle silencing a man praying in the Holy Ghost! No, the very reverse. There is a great deal of prayer that is not in the Holy Ghost. And we are not at all called upon only to pray in the Holy Ghost. Happy is he who does, and happy are they that hear prayer in the Holy Spirit. And where there is prayer in the Holy Spirit all is thoroughly acceptable to God, every word is so. Every word of such prayer expresses perfectly what God means at that time. But there are prayers that begin in the Spirit and do not end in the Spirit. Prayers are often rather mixed, and this is true even of real believers; and sometimes we pray foolishly, sometimes we pray unintelligently! This is never in the Holy Ghost.
And, what is more, we are encouraged to pray at all times, even supposing we say what is foolish. Very well, it is better to say it, than to be silent. Much better. Because prayer is the going forth of the heart to God, and it may be like the words of a prattling child to its father or mother. It is all right that the child should prattle, far better than that the child should be dumb. But the best of all is when it is really prayer in the Spirit of God; yet that is a thing rather to desire than to presume that we have attained to. We have to be very careful indeed that we do not give ourselves credit for more activity in the Holy Ghost than we really possess. This supposes entire dependence, and no thought of self, and no opposition to this or to that.
These are things that, alas! may be, and they all weaken and hinder “praying in the Holy Ghost.” But here you see the very same grace that encouraged the saints, even in the darkest day, “to build up themselves on their most holy faith,” instead of having the notion, Oh, it is hopeless to look for that now; when Peter or Paul was there we might have the most holy faith, but how could it be guaranteed now? Well, there it is in this precious word. And those that cleave to this precious word will find it out, and if their heart is full of it, their mouth will abundantly speak of it; and there is no ground to be discouraged, but the very contrary.
So, in this twentieth verse, we have two of the most important things possible – the one is, the standard of truth not in the least degree lowered, but maintained in all its highest and holiest character, even in that dark day; and, the second, the most spiritual action that could be in any believer here below, viz., “praying in the Holy Ghost.” Why, this is even more than preaching or teaching, because the heart is sure to be in the prayer. A man that can speak well and knows the truth – this may often be a snare. There is a danger in such a case to say the truth, and speak it out, and earnestly too, without there being present the power of the Spirit of God. But to pray in the Holy Ghost is another thing altogether. This cannot be without the immediate action of the Spirit in this most blessed way.
“Keep yourselves in the love of God.” Here Jude is looking at the practical result of these two things. “Keep yourselves in the love of God.” Now, could we keep ourselves in anything better? Was there ever anything higher than the keeping ourselves in the love of God? Love is of God, and we are to keep ourselves in it, instead of being provoked by the evil things around us, instead of yielding because of others yielding. This necessarily supposes great confidence in God, and delight in what God’s own nature is – the activity of His nature. Light is the moral character of God’s nature; love is the active character of God’s nature. Light does not allow any impurity; love goes out to bless others. We are called to keep ourselves, not merely in the light of God – we are there, we are brought there as Christians – but, in the love of God. We are not meant to have that doubted. We are to keep ourselves fresh and simple and confident in His love.
And he further adds, “Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” I think that mercy is brought in here especially because of the great need, because of the distress, because of the weakness, because of everything that tended to cast people down. No, he says, do not be downcast, look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it only by the way? No, it is all along the way, to the very end – “unto life eternal,” the great consummation. This could not be unless they already had life eternal in Christ now; but this mercy of God, “of our Lord Jesus Christ unto life eternal,” looks at the full heavenly consummation.
Jud 1:22 , Jud 1:23 .
Now we come to a passage which I feel to be unusually difficult to expound; and the reason is this. The original authorities and the best authorities are all in confusion about it. This is very rarely the case in the New Testament, but it is the case here. All the great authorities are at sixes and sevens in the testimony they give of these two verses (22, 23). And, to show you how great that is, our Version – the Authorised, so-called – looks at two cases only, “And of some have compassion, making a difference” – that is one class; “and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” – this is the second class.
Now I believe there are three classes, and not two only. That will show how uncertain it is. Although, as I have said, I am very far from presuming to give more than my judgment as far as the Lord enables me to form one. I am certainly open to anything that might be shown to the contrary, but as yet no one has shown it. No one at all. I think that those who know best about it are those that have spoken most cautiously as to it. Many who trust themselves are apt to speak more confidently.
First of all Jude says, “And some convict when contending.”* That is the idea – “when they dispute”; not, “making a difference,” as of the man that shows compassion. The fact is, compassion belongs to another class, not to this one at all, as far as I am able to judge, which depends upon looking at all the authorities and using one to correct another. That is what it comes to in this singular case, which is a very exceptional thing in the great original witnesses; but God has been pleased in this particular instance not to hinder their difference.
* AC*, the best cursives, and Vv., ABC, good cursives, Vulg., Syrr., Arm. – Text. Rec. KLP, etc.
Same then “convict when they dispute.” I think that is the meaning of it. “Making a difference,” as in the Authorised, should rather be, “when they dispute.” It is the people that are being convicted who of course make the dispute, instead of the person that shows compassion making a difference among them. It is quite a different idea. The first class, in this twenty-second verse, has been given (in my belief) very wrongly indeed.
Well, then, the next is, instead of “convicting” people so as to leave them without any excuse for their disputatious spirit, another class is looked at – “others save, pulling them out of [the] fire”; then, a third class, “and others pity with fear*, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (ver. 23).
* ABC, best cursives, Vulg. Memph., Arm., Aeth., A () B, Vulg. Memph., Arm., Aethiop. – Text. Rec. KLP, etc.
These then are the three classes: a disputatious class to be convicted and silenced – then, those that are to be saved, snatched out of the fire – and, others to be compassionated with fear, hating the garment spotted by the flesh. So that this all tends to complete the picture of the danger to souls. There is the all-importance of grace in the midst of it, but the truth maintained in all its power. And, you observe, it is for the same persons who are building up themselves on their most holy faith to do this. It is work that is thrown on the responsibility of those that were thoroughly happy and walking with God. These are the persons that would be able to silence the disputatious if they would be silenced by any one. But even apostles could not always do that. The apostle John speaks of the “malicious words” of Diotrephes. These words were directed against himself, and even an apostle could not alter that. The apostle Paul complained of “evil workers” who pretended to be quite as much apostles, if not more so, as himself. He refers to them in very trenchant terms in 2Co 11 . He could not hinder that. And when there was the great meeting in Jerusalem, where all the apostles were present, there was a deal of disputation and discussion there. It was only after it burst out in a noisy meeting at first, that Peter, as well as Barnabas and Paul, gave their testimony, and then James summed up the decision of the assembly (Act 15 ).
I only mention it to show that a like state of things existed at that time as now. We often look on the apostles as the painters represent the Lord. If you look at the pictures of the Lord Jesus, He is generally represented as going about with a halo of glory about His head. Well, if that were true, one might expect all the multitude to be down on their knees looking up to the man with this golden halo around him. But that is just what imagination does. It puts a halo around the Lord, and it puts a halo around the apostles; so that people do not realise at all the terrible evils that had to be faced by them. This was the portion, too, of those that were serving God, even in the best of times. How much more may we expect it now! As the Psalmist said, Time was when the work of the sanctuary was regarded as a good thing for a man to have put his hand to: all that fine carved work, all that grandeur of gold that gleamed in the sanctuary; but now it came to that pass, that a man was prized because he brake it all to pieces (Psa 74 ).
Well, this is what we have in the increasing lawlessness of Christendom, but let us not be downcast. Let us remember that the prize is coming; that the Lord puts especial honour on those that are faithful to Him in an evil day. The Lord grant us that great privilege.
Jud 1:24 , Jud 1:25 .
In the body of the Epistle we have already had the coming of the Lord in judgment, that is to say, bound up in the awful departure from the truth which was to be found in the Christian profession. This is what many souls are very unwilling to face. It is natural for man to think that everything must be progressive – the truth as well as all else. No one ever drew that from the Bible, and every part of the Bible, from the first book till the last, shows us man set in a place by God, and abandoning it for Satan. And there is the same story here. No doubt it is unspeakably terrible to find that what bears the name of Christ should turn out worst of all. I need not say the guilt of it is entirely man’s, and that the secret source of that evil is still Satan, as Satan is always behind the scenes in his antagonism, not only to God, but more particularly to the Lord Jesus. He is the One that Satan hates, and hates most of all because He became Man to glorify God where man had failed, and as Man to glorify God even about sin. Therefore, there is, what we might call, a natural antagonism in the devil, being what he is, against the One Who is to crush him at last. He well knows this, and there will come a time when, as he knows, he will have but a short time. That time has not yet come, but it is coming, and coming fast.
So Jude introduces the coming of the Lord in a very remarkable manner – not by a new prophecy, but by the recovery to us of one of the first prophecies ever uttered, and, certainly, the first prophecy that took shape, the ordinary shape, which gave its character to all others that follow. For nothing could be more in the prophetic character than these words: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam (to distinguish him from the Enoch who was the son of Cain) prophesied of these, saying, 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 ungodlily committed, and of (what people think little of) their hard words which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” “Words” are the common expression of man’s iniquity, because he cannot do all that he would like to do, but there is nothing he cannot “say.” Consequently, it is said, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” This character of evil, so far from being a light thing, is one which is presented with the utmost gravity, and that by Enoch before the flood: and it is nowhere else preserved. Here, thousands of years afterwards, Jude was enabled to disclose this to us – by what means we do not know. The Holy Ghost was perfectly capable without using any means. Whether there were any, we know not, but we know that here it is, and that this is the certain truth, not only of God, but through Enoch before he went to heaven.
But there is another connection with Enoch that we have now to look into, in the verses that close the Epistle. This is, that we may regard a latent connection in them with the blessed manner in which Enoch was taken out of the scene altogether. Now, this fell to Jude and not to Peter. I have already compared the very great marks of distinction between Peter’s and Jude’s treatment of these very cases. Peter’s view is purely as a question of unrighteousness, and he looks also at the teachers as being the most guilty parties in that unrighteousness – generally done for gain, or fame, or for some earthly motive of the kind that is not of God. Jude looks at it in a still deeper light; for he does not make so much of the teachers. The awful thing to Jude was that the church, that the body of the saints, who ought to be the light of God – the heavenly light of God in a world of darkness – that they were to become the seat of the worst evil of Satan; and this through letting in (no doubt, by carelessness, by lack of looking to God) these corrupters. That is his point of view. Not so much unrighteousness as apostasy. There is nothing so terrible as apostasy. In the case of unrighteousness it might be merely that of men going on with their badness. But apostasy always supposes that people have come out of their badness professedly, that they have received the truth professedly, that they have professedly received grace from God in Christ the Lord, and have turned their back upon it all. There is nothing so bad as that. So that you see, if there were not the gospel, and if there had not been the church, there could not have been so bad an apostasy as that which Jude contemplates here, from first to last.
We have, first of all then, as I have already shown, the trace of that apostasy as it presented itself to Jude by the Holy Ghost. And he takes his great figures of it from Israel, which after it was saved became the enemy of God, and fell under judgment. Peter does not say a word about that; he looks at merely wicked men; consequently, he is more occupied with the evil that brought on the deluge. Jude does not say a ward about the deluge, because there was no question of a people being saved. There was a family – a few individuals – but there was not a people. Jude looks at the church, and compares the church getting wrong and losing everything after, having apparently gained everything: according to the picture of Israel, saved out of Egypt, and nevertheless, all coming to nothing.
We see how beautifully the figures employed and the illustrations used are all perfectly in keeping with the great differences between the two Epistles of Peter and Jude. And I mention it again, as I have already done, as a proof of the blindness of men in our day, in what they call “higher criticism.” They will have it that the one Epistle is only a copy of the other. Why, they are perfectly contrasted the one with the other. There are some points, of course, that must be common – the wickedness of man, the grace of God, the truth of God. All that must be common to the two Epistles.
But the character of the truth in the one case is simply, men corrupting righteousness into unrighteousness – that is Peter. In Jude it is men, who were blessed by the revelation of grace, turning it into licentiousness, men who had not merely the authority of God, but the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not say a word about this. It is God’s authority. Even the Lord is there looked at as Master – a Sovereign Master – not in the attitude of e our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude adds that. So Noah is the great figure in Peter; whereas Enoch, and not Noah, is the figure before us in Jude.
Now, I ask, how could the wit of man ever have done this? Even when people have read the two Epistles, many Christians have not noticed these differences, yet there they are. What learned men see is the apparent resemblances between the two. But that is an altogether unintelligent way of reading anything. Because, even if you look at all the men of the world, well, they all agree in being men, but just think how foolish a person must be who can see no difference between one man and another because they are both men! That is just the way these learned men talk. They see no difference between Peter and Jude, the one copied the other! Whereas the striking thing is that, although they both go over the same ground, they look at it in different ways – both full of instruction, yet such instruction as only the Holy Ghost could give.
Oh, how solemn when we read this last Epistle, which bears upon the apostasy of Christianity, or rather of Christendom, of those that were introduced to the richest blessings of God’s grace and truth in Christ, yet turning to be the bitterest enemies of it (not only abandoning it, but) treating it with contempt and disdain, and with hatred to the last degree.
This is exactly what we have in the middle of the Epistle. We saw the characters that it takes, particularly Cain, Balaam, and Korah – the beginning, middle and end, I might say. The unnatural brother that hated, not a mere man only, but his own brother, and slew him. The bitterest enemies of the faithful are always those who profess to be faithful and are not. There is no bitterness so deep as that of an unworthy bearer of the name of Christ. Well, that is Cain. Not a word of this in Peter. That belongs to Jude, and is here.
Then Balaam appears in Peter because he is a false prophet that figures the false teachers, who are more the thing in Peter, but not in Jude; for here it is the saints, the body of the saved ones – at any rate in profession. That is what alarmed and shocked him. And he puts it forth for us, that we might now understand it, that we should not be too much perplexed by any of these terrible things which may break out at any time in our midst. There never was a more foolish idea, perhaps, entertained by some of us, that whoever might go wrong this could not happen amongst those called “Brethren.” Oh, foolish Brethren, to flatter themselves in such a way as that! Why you, we – for I take my place along with you in it altogether – we are the persons most liable to have the highest flown expressions and pretension to the greatest piety, while there may be an enormously evil thing going on. How are we to judge of such things? By the word of God. And you will always find that those that are carrying on in that way slip from the word. They do not want the word. They want something new, something that will go on with the times, something that will make the “Brethren” more popular, something that will get bigger congregations, and all those things that are flattering to human vanity; the consequence is they are naturally afraid of the word. No wonder. No one ever quarrelled with the word of God, if the word of God did not condemn them. Every person who loves the word owes to it all his entrance into blessing; he derives all from that precious word and that precious word reveals Christ. Consequently we should not be occupied about pleasing others and about their work, but with Christ. And we want all God’s children also to be occupied with Christ as the only ground of any solid and sure peace.
In Enoch’s prophecy we may observe once more that it is not exactly “the Lord cometh,” but, “Behold, the Lord came.” This manner of speaking is quite usual in the prophets, and that is why they are called “seers.” What they described they saw as in a prophetic vision. John saw all the various objects which he describes in the Revelation. He saw the heaven opened, and the Lord coming out, and the throne set. But it does not mean that all this was accomplished then. He saw it all before it took place. So did Enoch. He saw the Lord come; and he presented it in that way. In Isa 53 we see the same thing. “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth.” It does not mean that there was any doubt about its being all future; but that the prophet saw it before his eyes, the eyes opened by the Holy Spirit. It is the same thing here. The Lord is seen at the close of the age coming with ten thousands of His saints to take judgment, to inflict judgment on these apostates; and the Spirit of God here intimates that the same family likeness of departure from God has been going on since the days of Enoch, and that it was to go on, not only in Jude’s day, but in the future till the Lord comes. It was all one in character – hatred of God. And you see how entirely this falls in with what I have been saying, that man always departs from God. It is not only that he is rebellious, not only that he behaves himself badly, not only that he violates this and that, but he turns his back upon God altogether and His truth. This is apostasy, and the spirit of it is already come. It will, come out thoroughly, and then the Lord will come in judgment.
But now the hope! What is that? Well, it is implied in what we saw. “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of His saints.” The question is, How did they come with Him? If the Lord comes with His saints, He must have come before to fetch them to Himself, and this is just what He will do. But that is a thing entirely outside the prophetic introduction of the Lord’s coming. The Lord’s coming for His saints is not a matter of prophecy at all. It is a matter of love and hope; we may say of faith, love and hope. They are all in full play in the wonderful prospect that grace has opened out before our eyes. Therefore it is that the Lord does not introduce this prospect except in a very general way, in any of the Gospels so much as He does in John: “In My Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto Myself” (Joh 14:2 , Joh 14:3 ).
There is nothing about prophecy in that passage. It is future, but its being future does not make it prophecy. It is an abuse of terms to think that prophecy is essentially bound up with judging a wrong state of things and replacing it with a better. But in this case, as in Joh 14 , the Lord, when He comes to put us in the Father’s house, does not judge a wrong state of things. It is consummating His love to the dearest objects of His love, not merely on earth but for heaven; and it is in that way that the Lord speaks. It is the same thing in the Revelation. After He has done with all the prophetic part, He presents Himself as “the bright and the morning star.” And when the church has that before her, we find a new thing, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come.” That is not prophecy; that is the church’s hope, and it is strictly the church’s hope. Because when you say, “The Spirit and the bride,” it is not merely an individual, it is the whole – personified – of the saints that compose the bride. “The Spirit and the bride!” What a wonderful thing that the Spirit should put Himself at the head of it! “The Spirit and the bride say, Come.” It might have been thought, Oh! that is only a sanguine hope that the bride has got. But, no; you cannot talk about anything sanguine in the mind of the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit and the bride say, Come.” Hence you see that the great object of the Lord, in that close of the Revelation, was to show that you must not mix up the hope of the Lord’s coming to receive us to Himself with the accomplishment of prophecy. The hope is entirely apart from any prophetic events. It is not in the seals, it is not in the trumpets, still less is it in the vials. It is after all these things that the Spirit of God, in the conclusory observations, gives there what the Lord had given, when Himself on earth, to His disciples. The Spirit of God takes up there what was suited to the then condition of the church. The church then knew that she was “the bride” of Christ. This had been clearly shown in more than one chapter of the Revelation. In Rev 19 , the marriage of the Lamb had come, and the bride had made herself ready. That could not be the earthly bride. How could the earthly bride celebrate a marriage in heaven? And how could the heavenly bride celebrate it there unless saints composing it had been taken there before? This is just what I am about to come to.
Well, then, this coming of the Lord, which is “our hope,” is exactly what Jude takes up here in the closing verses.
“But to Him that is able to keep you without stumbling, and to set you with exultation blameless before His glory; to an only* God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord [be] glory, majesty, might, and authority, before all times, and now, and unto all the ages. Amen” (vers. 24, 25).
* (wise) is omitted by ABC Vulg. Copt. Arm. thiop. and Syrr. Vv. – T.R. inserts with KLP and many cursives.
ABCL Vulg. Copt. and Syrr. Vv. – T.R. omits with K.P.
ABCL Vulg. Copt. Arm. and thiop. Vv. – T.R. omits with KP and most cursives.
“Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling.” How appropriate when thus presenting the dangers, the evils, the horrible iniquity of apostasy from all Christian grace and truth that might have the effect of greatly dispiriting a feeble soul! No one ought even to be dispirited; not one. “Now unto Him that is able to keep” clearly refers to every step of the way, and there is power in Him to keep. It is we who fail in dependence. Never does He fail in power to preserve. “Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless.” Where? “Before the presence of His glory.” Where is that? Is not that the very glory into which the Lord has now gone? And does not He say, “that where I am there ye may be also”? Here we find that the hope of the Christian and the hope of the church is entirely untouched by all the ruin that had come in. Spiritual power remained intact. And not only that: this glorious, blessed hope remains for our consolation and our joy in the darkest day.
“Now unto Him that is able to keep you without stumbling and to set you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy.” There we have what falls in not with Peter, but with Jude. Jude, of course, entirely agrees with Peter, and confirms Peter as to the judgment that is to fall on those that were not only unrighteous but apostate. But then Jude does not forget that there are those that are true, that there are those that are faithful, that there are those that are waiting for Christ, that there are those that are even more appreciative of the blessing because of the unbelief of man. Therefore it is that he brings in this present power which depends entirely on the Holy Spirit’s presence to keep us; and, further, he speaks of the blessed hope depending upon Christ’s coming to receive us to Himself, “and to present us faultless.” That will only be because we are glorified; that will only be because we are like Himself. He was the only One intrinsically faultless, and He is the One Who, by redemption, and then also by its accomplishment for the body – for redemption now is only as far as the soul is concerned, but when He comes it will be for the body as well – will present us faultless both in soul and body “before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy.”
Jud 1:25 .
“To the only [wise] God.” The word “wise” has crept in here. In all correct texts the word “wise” disappears in this place. It is perfectly right in Rom 16:27 . And I just refer to that text to show its appropriateness there: “To God only wise.” I presume that it was this passage that led the ignorant monk, or whoever he was that was copying Jude, to (as he thought) correct it. But we cannot correct. All these human corrections are innovations, and our point is to get back to what God wrote and to what God gave. Everything except what God gave is an innovation, but God’s word is the standard, and all that departs from, or does without, it is an innovation.
Now, in this chapter of Romans, what made the word “wise” appropriate and necessary there, is that Paul refers to the mystery. He does not bring out the mystery in Romans; but after completing the great subject of the righteousness of God, first, in its personal application as well as in itself, secondly, comparing it with the dispensations of God, and, thirdly, in its practical shape – personal, dispensational, and practical – he here adds a little word at the close, “Now to Him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery.” The revelation of the mystery – he had not brought this in. But he maintains that this gospel of his was according to it. It was not the revelation of it; but it did not clash with it. There was no contrariety, but that revelation of the mystery was left for other Epistles, Ephesians and Colossians more particularly; Corinthians also in a measure, but chiefly Ephesians and Colossians.
Further he says, “which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by prophetic writings” (or, scriptures, namely, those of the New Testament. I understand that what is called here “scriptures of the prophets” are the prophetic writings of the New Testament, of which Paul contributed so much) “according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations” – that shows that the Old Testament prophets are not referred to here at all – “for obedience of faith; to God only wise be glory.” That is to say, this concealment of the mystery and now bringing it out in due time – not in Romans, but in what would be found to agree with Romans and confirm Romans when the mystery was communicated to the saints in the Epistles that had to be written afterwards – all this showed “God only wise.” It is in connection, you see, with this keeping back for so many ages, and now for the first time bringing out this hidden truth, the hidden mystery, as he calls it, to our glory, which is involved in Christ’s exaltation at the right hand of God, and in His leaving the world for the time entirely alone, whilst meanwhile forming the disciples according to the truth of His being in heaven.
In Timothy, however, we have an expression exactly similar to what we have here. “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1Ti 1:17 ). There the word “wise” is brought in again in our Authorised Version. There is no reason for it there. So that there is the same error introduced in Timothy as there is in Jude, and both of them brought from what we already have in Rom 16 , where it ought to be. Here, we find again, what a dangerous thing it is for man to meddle with the word of God. The apostle is here looking at God Himself, not at what He particularly does. The wisdom of His revelation – that is in Romans. But in Timothy it is, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God.” There might be all these pretenders, these gods many and lords many that Paul knew very well among the Gentiles, and Timothy also, and particularly at this very Ephesus where Timothy seems to have been at this very time. There was the famous temple (one of the wonders of the world), called the temple of Diana. Artemis is the proper word, for Diana was a Roman goddess, and Artemis was a Grecian goddess quite of a different nature, although there were kindred lies about the two.
Here, therefore, in Timothy the apostle presented with great propriety and beauty “the only God.” Bringing in the “wise” God introduces quite another idea which does not fall in with the context, it does not agree with it properly. We find just the same thing in Jude. So that the comparison, I think, of the three scriptures will help to show that “the only wise God” belongs to Romans; that “the only God” – Who is presented in contrast with idols and imaginary beings – brings in to Timothy the force of the “only” true God.
In Jude we have “the only God” for a slightly different reason, but one equally appropriate. He is looking at all this terrible scene and at the greatness of the grace of God towards His beloved ones carried through such an awful sea of iniquity and apostasy.
But if our eye be fixed on Christ, my dear brethren, it does not matter where we are, or whether we are smooth or rough. Some would make a great deal of the large waves, and I have no doubt that Peter was frightened at the big waves on which he found himself walking, and when he looked at the waves down he went. But if there had been no big waves, all as smooth as glass, and Peter had looked down on the glassy sea, down he would have gone all the same. It is not, therefore, at all a question of the particular circumstances. The fact is, there is no power to keep us, except a divine one, and it is all grace; and the grace that supports on a smooth sea is equally able to preserve on a rough one. Whatever, therefore, may be the special characters of evil and of danger at the present time, all turns upon this: What is Christ to my soul? And if I believe in His grace and in His truth then what does not my soul find in Christ?
“Now, unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory, with exceeding joy.” For the grace on His part is just the same as if there had been no departure, no apostasy, no wickedness, no unrighteousness of any kind. He wrought His marvellous work of grace for us when we were nothing but sinners. He brought us to Himself when we were no better – unmoved, perhaps, by that wonderful work when we first read and heard about it. But when the moment came for us to believe on Him, how it changed all! And surely the times that have passed over us have only endeared the Lord more to us. I hope there is not a soul in this room but what loves the Lord a deal better today than the day on which he, or she, was first converted. It is one of those notions of Christendom that our love is always much better and stronger on the day we were first converted. Never was there greater mistake. There was a feeling of mercy, no doubt; a deep sense of pardoning grace, but, beloved friends, do we not love the Lord for incomparably more than what we knew when converted? Surely that love has grown with a better knowledge of His love, and of His truth. And here we find that His grace is exactly the same, that the grace that brought Him from heaven, the grace of Him, Who lived here below, that died here below, and is now gone back into glory, is without change; and that the exceeding joy or exultation will be unquenched in the smallest degree when the blessed moment comes. “He will set us blameless before the presence of His glory, with exceeding joy.” It is not very much to find where the exceeding joy is. I am persuaded it is both in Him and in us. Perhaps we may be allowed to say, “which thing is true in Him and in you” (1Jn 2:8 ). That was said about another thing altogether – the love that He put into our hearts when we knew His redemption; for until we know redemption there is not much love in a believer. He may have a good bit of affection for the people that he is intimate with, but he is very narrow at first, and till he knows the love of Christ his affections do not at all go out to all the saints. Here then we find, at any rate, this glowing picture of that bright hope, when it will surely be accomplished.
Now, Jude adds, “To the only God.” For who could have met all this confusion? Who could have conceived and counselled all this grace and truth? Who could have kept such as we are through all, remembering our total weakness, our great exposure, the hatred of the enemy, the contempt of adversaries, of all that are drawn away, of all the enticement to go wrong, all the animosities, worst of all, created by any measure of faithfulness? Yet He does keep through it all. “The only God our Saviour”; not only Christ our Saviour. Christ is the accomplisher of it all, but here Jude looks at God as the source, and it is no derogation from Christ. It was the delight of Christ on earth to present God as a Saviour God, and not merely that He Himself was that personal Saviour, the Son of man. So here the apostle desires that we should ever honour God our Saviour, as indeed we find it rather a common expression in those very solemn Epistles to Timothy.
“To the only God our Saviour.” All other dependence is vain, all other boast is worthless. We are intended to rejoice, or, rather more strictly, to “boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom we have now received the reconciliation.”
“To [the] only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority, before all time, and now and ever (or, to all the ages).” It is a very interesting thing to note here the propriety with which Jude closes the Epistle. He says, “Be glory, majesty, might and authority, before all time, and now, and for evermore, Amen.” He looks at the full extent of eternity. It is much more precise than what we have in our Authorised Version; and is here given according to the reading of the best authorities, and rightly adopted by the Revisers.
Peter also closes his Second Epistle in what is said to be the same. But there is this distinction, that whilst Peter speaks of “glory both now and unto eternity’s day” (2Pe 3:18 ), Jude brings out in the remarkable completeness of his closing ascription what was, and is, and is to be, in all its full eternal character.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jud 1:1 a
1Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,
Jud 1:1 “Jude” In Hebrew this is Judah and in Greek it is Judas. Jesus’ half-brother by this name is mentioned in Mat 13:55 and Mar 6:3. From the information we have, all of His brothers and sisters were unbelievers until after the Resurrection (cf. Joh 7:5).
“a bond servant” This may have been used as (1) a sign of humility (cf. Rom 1:1) or (2) an OT honorific title, “servant of God,” used of Moses, Joshua, and David as well as of the Messiah in Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12. Clement of Alexandria asserts the first usage as the reason Jude, like James, did not call himself “brother of the Lord.” The second usage may follow Paul’s use of the phrase (cf. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Php 1:1).
It is also interesting to note that although the phrase “a bond-servant (or slave) of Jesus Christ” sounds like Paul in English; it is more like Jas 1:1. Paul always put the noun first, followed by the genitive phrase, but not so Jude and James.
“Jesus” This is Joshua in Hebrew and is the name designated by Gabriel to Mary. It means “YHWH saves” (cf. Mat 1:21).
“Christ” This is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term Messiah, which means “anointed one” (i.e., for a specific task or appointed by God).
“and brother of” It is unusual in the ancient near-east and Greco-Roman world to designate oneself “brother of”; usually it is “son of.” It is possible that both James and Jude were uncomfortable with the exalted title “brother of the Lord.” Others in the church may have used this designation for them (cf. Mat 13:55; Joh 7:3-10; Act 1:14; 1Co 9:5; and Gal 1:19).
“James” This is the Hebrew Jacob. He was another half-brother of Jesus who became the leader of the Jerusalem Church (cf. Acts 15) and wrote the canonical book of James.
SPECIAL TOPIC: JAMES, THE HALF-BROTHER OF JESUS
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Jude. See Introductory Notes.
the = a.
servant. App-190.
Jesus Christ. App-98.
James. See Jam 1:1.
sanctified. All the texts and the Syriac read “beloved” (App-135.)
by = in. App-104.
God. App-98.
Father. App-98.
preserved = kept. Greek. tereo. Occ five times in the epistle, verses: Jud 1:1, Jud 1:6, Jud 1:6, Jud 1:13, Jud 1:21. The word phulasso is used in Jud 1:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
——
1, 2.] Address and greeting. Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ (, probably not here in the wider sense, in which all Christians are servants of Christ-but in that special sense in which those were bound to His service who were employed in the preaching and disseminating of His word: see reff.: on the absence of any official designation, see prolegomena), and brother of James (see prolegomena), to the called (in the sense of St. Paul (reff.); effectually drawn by God the Father to the knowledge of the Gospel), beloved in (the phrase is one not elsewhere found, and difficult of interpretation. The meanings by, = , cf. 2Th 2:13, ; on account of, understanding beloved by the writer, are hardly admissible. The only allowable sense of seems to be, in the case of, as regards, understanding of course that the love of the Father is spoken of) God the Father (St. Paul ordinarily in his greetings adds to , cf. Rom 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Eph 1:2; Php 1:2; Col 1:2; 2Th 1:1; Phm 1:3. But he has absolutely in the following places; Gal 1:1-2; Eph 6:23; Php 2:11; 2Th 1:2; 1Ti 1:2; 2Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; as also St. Peter, 1Pe 1:2; 2Pe 1:17; St. John, 2Jn 1:3. It became more frequently used, as might be expected, in the later days of the canon) and kept for Jesus Christ (reserved, to be His at the day of His coming: the dative is commodi. If the question be asked, kept by whom? the answer must be, by God the Father: though constructionally the words are not connected. Observe the perfect participles, giving the signification from of old and still): mercy to you and peace and love be multiplied (all three proceeding from God: Gods mercy, Gods peace, Gods love: see Jud 1:21. In the somewhat similar passage, Eph 6:23, . . , the love and faith are clearly, in themselves, the gift of God: mutual love or love towards God. But the other seems better here).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Jud 1:1-2. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Our holy faith breeds in us the best wishes for others. As we desire to find mercy ourselves, so do we long that others also should find mercy; and as we rejoice in the peace and love which the Holy Ghost works in us, we desire that others may partake of the same spiritual benefits. Hence the apostles usually begin their Epistles with these good wishes, which are not mere wishes, but earnest prayers and inspired benedictions. May we breathe such petitions wherever we go! Let us wish no man any ill, even in the most exacting and trying times, and under the greatest provocation; but still let us breathe out this prayer, Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Jud 1:3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.
These godly men, though they wrote under divine inspiration, yet stirred themselves up that they might be in a right condition of mind and heart. Even though the pen does not by itself write, yet it is well that it be not corroded, lest it answer not to the hand that uses it; so Jude says, I gave all diligence to write unto you. All the diligence of Jude by itself could not have written this Epistle; still, while depending upon divine guidance, he was no mere passive agent, but he gave all diligence to the accomplishment of his task. Jude wrote of the common salvation, for there is but one. He was writing a general Epistle, a catholic Epistle, to all sorts of persons all over the world, and he therefore wrote of the common salvation. There is but one salvation; there cannot be another. There are some who trouble us, as some troubled the Christians in the apostles day, by preaching another gospel, which is not another, but there is only one salvation. It was needful, says the apostle, for me to write unto you; and oh, how needful it is still to preach the gospel, and to warn men against defections from it! Jude continues, It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all (that is the correct rendering) delivered to the saints. The faith is not a growth, it is not an evolution, it was once for all delivered to the saints; and the great business of the saints, the holy, the saintly among men, is to defend, if necessary with their lives, the faith once delivered unto them. We are put in trust with the gospel, we are trustees of a divine deposit of invaluable truth; and we must be true to our trust at all costs. It was needful for Jude to write as he did, for he had further to say,-
Jud 1:4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
These are two vital points in which many have erred, either separating holiness of life from orthodoxy of belief, or denying the divinity and the supremacy of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing could more discredit the gospel than the first error, that of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness; and nothing could more injure the gospel than the second error, that of denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the laud of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
So you may get in among the spiritual children of Israel, you may share their privileges, you may sing the Red Sea song of triumph; and yet, after all, if there is not real living faith within your soul, God will as surely destroy you as he destroyed the unbelieving Israelites. Those myriads of graves in the wilderness are as sure a token of Gods hatred of sin as the drowning of Pharaohs chariots and horsemen in the Red Sea. Beware, then, of having a form of faith which does not purify your lives, a profession of belief in Christ which even allows you to live in sin with impunity; for if you have this however near you may seem to be to the people of God, even if you are counted in with them, yet God will not reckon you as his, for he is the same Lord who afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
The angels think of how high they stood in their first estate. If sin could drag an angel from the skies, it may well pluck a minister from the pulpit, a deacon from the communion table, a church-member out of the midst of his brethren. It is only perseverance in holiness which is the token of eternal salvation; if we forsake the Lord, and turn back to our former evil ways, it will be the evidence that we never really believed in Christ, and that there was no true work of grace in our hearts.
Jud 1:7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Whatever the new gods, newly come up, that some preach nowadays, may be or may not be, our God is a consuming fire, our God is one who takes vengeance upon iniquity, and who will by no means spare the guilty. He is as terribly just as he is divinely gracious; let us bow before him.
Jud 1:8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
What a strange thing it is that such evils should spring up in the nominal church of God! I suppose that, out of the professing church, there have come more monstrous evils than have been nursed in the world itself. Why, even in these days, we have had those who have professed perfection, who have given themselves over to abominable evils, and who have even taught them as a part of their perfection! Ah, me! To what depths of infamy will not men go! Under the very guise of holiness, the most loathsome iniquity has been practiced. Unless the grace of God prevent, that which is best rots into that which is worst. You could not make a devil except with an angel for the raw material; a Judas Iscariot could only be produced out of an apostle of Jesus Christ; and it was into the nominal church of God that these filthy dreamers of whom Jude wrote had come. They were also, according to the apostle, those who despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, those who cavil at everything that is right and good, and seek to pull down everything that comes to them with authority, especially everything that is of divine authority.
Jud 1:9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
I do not know when that happened, yet I believe it, because it is here. When we are called to dispute, whether it be about the law, which might be regarded as the body of Moses, or about the gospel, which is the body of Christ,-let us use no railing accusations, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Let us be satisfied with hard arguments and soft words; and when we feel that our own rebuke will be useless, let us simply say, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jud 1:10. But these speak evil of those things, which they know not:
Very generally it is so; those who revile Holy Scripture are usually persons who have not read the Bible; they speak evil of those things, which they know not.
Jud 1:10-12. But what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity,
You seem to he sailing smoothly along over the placid waters, but these men are like hidden rocks,-that is the expression used by the apostle rather than spots.
Jud 1:12. When they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear:
At the love feasts in the apostles day, these ungodly men feasted without fear, just as some do at the communion table now. The absence of holy fear is a damning mark in the souls of unholy professors. That religion which has no awe in it, which never makes us tremble before the Most High, is not the religion of genuine faith, for there is a fear which even perfect love casteth not out, but it rather increases and deepens that holy fear which is the very essence of true piety.
Jud 1:12-13. Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Such were in the professing church in Judes time, so we must not be surprised if we meet with men like them in the nominal church today.
Jud 1:14-15. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, 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.
When Enoch thus prophesied, we do not know. That he did so, was revealed to Jude, and he here tells us of it. It was profitable for us that so pointed and plain a testimony of Enoch should not be lost.
Jud 1:16-18. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having mens persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude gives a summary of warnings uttered by Paul, Peter, and James.
Jud 1:19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
They know nothing of the divine life, and of that Divine Spirit who dwells in the bodies of the saints as in a holy temple.
Jud 1:20. But ye, beloved, building-
Is this the way, then, to prevent our falling into sin? Yes. To prevent doing wrong, do right: Ye, beloved, building-doing good, substantial, solid work, building-
Jud 1:20. Up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost!
He has told us about the one foundation, now he bids us build thereon: Building up yourselves on your most holy faith. Praying. That is the next thing; there is no preservation like that which is given by God in response to believing prayer. Praying in the Holy Ghost. There is a kind of praying which is without the Holy Ghost, and it speedeth not. There is a praying which is the breath of God in man, returning whence it came; this will keep us from falling, and bring us untold blessings.
Jud 1:21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
While you thus carefully watch over yourselves, have great love also to others, and seek to bless them, especially your fellow church members.
Jud 1:22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:
They may all, apparently, sin in much the same way; but there may be circumstances that make a difference between them. There may not be the same willfulness, or the same continuance in the sin in some as there is in others; there may be in some cases greater temptation, and therefore more excuse for them: Of some have compassion, making a difference.
Jud 1:23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Loving the sinners, but hating their sin.
Jud 1:24-25. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
The Lord bless the reading of his Word to our profit! Amen.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Jud 1:1. , Jude) The Epistle has three parts.
I.THE INSCRIPTION, Jud 1:1-2.
II.THE DISCUSSION: in which he exhorts them to contend for the faith, Jud 1:3 :
And, having described the destruction and character of the adversaries, Jud 1:4-16,
He admonishes the righteous, Jud 1:17-18;
Confirms them, Jud 1:19-21;
And instructs them in their duty towards others, Jud 1:22-23.
III.THE CONCLUSION, with a Doxology, Jud 1:24-25.
This Epistle closely agrees with the Second of Peter, which Jude appears to have had before his eyes. Comp. Jud 1:17-18, with 2Pe 3:3. Peter wrote that at the end of his life: from which it may be inferred, that St Jude lived longer, and saw, by that time, the great declension of all things in the Church, which had been foretold by St Peter. But he passes by some things mentioned by Peter, he expresses others with a different purpose and in different language, he adds others; while the wisdom of the apostle plainly shines forth, and his severity increases. Thus Peter quotes and confirms Paul, and Jude quotes and confirms Peter.- , but the brother of James) James was more widely known, being styled the brother of the Lord; therefore Jude modestly calls himself the brother of James.-) A periphrasis, to which the antithesis answers in Jud 1:4.-, beloved) The conclusion corresponds with the introduction: Jud 1:21.-, preserved) To be preserved uninjured for Christ, is a subject of joy: Joh 17:2; Joh 17:11; Joh 17:15; 2Co 11:2. The sources and completion of salvation are pointed out: and this passage has a kind of anticipatory precaution (), lest the righteous should be alarmed by the mention of such dreadful evils.-, called) Calling is altogether the prerogative of Divine bounty.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Jud 1:1-2
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION (Jud 1:1-4)
SALUTATION (Jud 1:1-2)
1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.–The author of the Epistle affirms three things of himself in the first sentence of the opening paragraph of the Epistle, (1) his name was “Jude;” (2) he was a servant of Jesus Christ, and (3) a brother of “James.” For a detailed discussion of the reasons which prompt to the view that this individual so designated was a son of Mary and Joseph, and therefore, a brother in the flesh of our Lord, see under “Author of the Epistle,” in the introduc-tion.
The name Jude, the literal meaning of which is renowned, was a common one among the Jews of the first century. There are at least nine persons so designated in the New Testament. (Luk 3:33; Luk 3:26; Luk 3:30; Mat 10:3; Mat 13:55; Mat 10:4; Act 15:22; Act 9:11; Act 5:37.) Two of the apostles bore the name Jude or Judas (the English Revised Version has the spelling Judas in this verse), these being the apostle designated in Joh 14:22; and Iscariot who betrayed the Lord.
Notwithstanding the fact that this writer was a brother of the Lord, he makes no mention thereof in the Epistle, being content merely to style himself “a servant” of “Jesus Christ.” Numerous reasons may be assigned why he chose to do this. (1) That which he wrote was true and should be accepted on its own merits, and not because of the relationship which the author sustained to the Lord. (2) Considerations of humility prompted him to omit any reference to such relationship. (3) Such a reference might have supplied an occasion for envy or jealousy on the part of others. (3) The Lord had taught that those who did his will were possessed of greater distinction than any fleshly relation-ship might have afforded. (Mat 12:46-50.)
The word “servant” is translated from a word (doulos), which literally signifies a slave, (cf. the margin of the ASV), though with this difference: doulos designates one who gladly surrenders his will to another, a disposition not always characteristic of literal slaves, but eminently true of all who resign their wills to that of the Lord. The service is absolute and unrestrained, but willing, and rendered from motives of love, and gratitude and joy. The word appears in the introductions to the Epistles of Romans, Philippians, Titus, James and 2 Peter.
James, identified as “a brother” of the author, was himself author of the New Testament book which bears his name, and who, too, omitted any reference to the relation which he likewise bore to the Lord. Neither of these faithful disciples suffered the in-clinations of the flesh to lead them to a boastful announcement of their position, and both with becoming humility laid stress on the fact that they were simply servants. (Cf. Jas 1:1.) To be a bond-servant of the Lord is truly to occupy the most enviable position possible to man today. See, at length on the identity of Jude and James, the introduction to the Epistle.
To them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:–The address is ‘to them that are called, and the “called” are identified as (a) beloved in God the Father; and (b) kept for Jesus Christ. All saints are called in to the work which is theirs to do (2Th 2:14); the call is ex-tended through the gospel, and is world-wide and all-inclusive in its nature, (Mar 16:15-16.) Many are called, but few chosen, because all who are called do not heed and hearken and obey.
The “called” are “beloved of God the Father,” this indeed being the occasion of their calling. “But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:8, see, also, Joh 3:16.) Those thus called (through the gospel), are “kept” (preserved) for Jesus Christ, i.e., for his honor and glory. That this keeping is not uncon-ditional in its nature, and hence does not suggest the impossibility of falling away from the grace of God and the divine favor, see Jud 1:21, where the admonition is to “keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Compare also the remarks on 1Pe 1:4. Though the divine guardianship is here marvelously set forth, there is the corresponding thought of faithfulness and fidelity. Though we are “kept” for Jesus Christ, we must “keep” ourselves (the same Greek verb is employed) in his love. It is paradoxical but emi-nently true that while we must depend wholly on God for our salvation, we cannot be saved without doing our part. Paul em-braced both ideas when he said, “Work out your own salvation. . . for it is God who worketh in you. . . .” (Php 2:12.)
2 Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied.–With the substitution of “mercy” for “grace” this salutation cor-responds with that which occurs in the outset of both of the Epistles of Peter. Mercy, peace and love are associated here, because these graces sum up the blessings most needful for Jude’s readers, and for all of us today. All of these proceeded from God, and these Jude desired to be multipled (abound) in the lives of those to whom he wrote. Compare the salutations occurring in the Epistles of Peter, (1Pe 1:2 and 2Pe 1:2), and see the notes there.
Commentary on Jud 1:1-2 by E.M. Zerr
Jud 1:1. The writer of this epistle calls himself brother of James, no doubt because of the prominence of James in the Jerusalem church, the man who wrote the epistle of that name. Neither of these men was one of the twelve apostles as is shown in remarks at Jas 1:1. This epistle is addressed to them that are sanctified which means Christians. (See the comments at 1Pe 1:1.)
Jud 1:2. To be multiplied means the blessings are to be very abundant.
Commentary on Jud 1:1-2 by N.T. Caton
Jud 1:1.-Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ.
The author first gives his name, and then proceeds to give the means by which he may be identified. He first says, a servant of Jesus Christ. This expression can mean no more nor no less than the same means when used by Paul or John, viz.: an apostle of Jesus Christ. His omission to add the word “apostle” can not militate against this view, otherwise we must conclude that some of the epistles attributed to Paul were written by others, particularly the letters to the Philippians, Thessalonians, Philemon and Hebrews, and those of John, viz.: the first, second and third epistles. The writer, however, proceeds to place his identity beyond cavil by adding, “the brother of James.” On this point for further remarks, see introduction.
Sanctified.
Set apart-that is, by obedience to the gospel they are sanctified, or set apart to the service of God.
Preserved in Jesus Christ.
Remain free from vices, unspotted from worldly sins, by the observance of those precepts which are through or in Christ given to the world. Thus preserved and-
Called.
The gospel was preached; they heard, accepted and obeyed, and were thus called.
Jud 1:2.-Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
By God’s mercy they were pardoned; the apostle desires a continuance of this pardoning mercy, and the other things relate to their lives here, and may be summed up by saying he wishes them an increase of happiness here, temporal and spiritual.
Commentary on Jud 1:1-2 by Donald Fream
Jude identifies himself as a brother of the well-known James and as a servant of Jesus. He then addresses the Christians with a wish for mercy, peace and love. There is some question as to which Jude actually wrote the book. The five Judes of the New Testament include (1) The Judas of Damascus (Act 9:11). Lack of further mention of this Jude eliminates him as a likely author of the epistle. (2) Judas Barsabas was mentioned in Acts 15 (Act 15:22; Act 15:27; Act 15:32). This Judas accompanies Silas on a trip to Antioch from Jerusalem, and he was also called a prophet (Act 15:32), but he has never been seriously considered as a likely author of the book of Jude. (3) Then there was Judas Iscariot who was not alive at the time the book was written. This leaves two men by the name of Jude who might have possibly been the author: (4) The Apostle Judas not Iscariot (Joh 14:22). This apostle is called the brother of James in the Authorised Version, and as such would look like a likely author of the book. However, in this passage the word brother has been added, for it was not contained in the original Greek. (All words printed in italics in the Authorised Version are not in the original Greek). Judas of James in the Greek more likely means Judas, son of James. The later translations so read. Thus the apostle Judas is probably not the author of the book. Had he been, he probably would have mentioned his apostleship in the first verse rather than identifying himself as being the brother of James. (5) The most likely author is the fifth Judas, the brother of Jesus mentioned in Mat 13:55 and Mar 6:3. James the author of the epistle James, is identified as the brother of Jesus. It is quite probable that another brother of Jesus, Jude, wrote the Jude epistle. Had he been an apostle, his apostleship would have been a sure mark of identification, but this he does not mention.
You might ask, If Jude, the brother of Jesus, wrote the epistle, why didnt he mention that he was Jesus brother as a mark of identifying himself? Jude no doubt felt his relationship to Jesus as a Lord and servant relationship to be far more important. In humility and for the sake of proper testimony it seems natural he would prefer to call himself a servant of his Lord (which he was). James was so well known that this identification seemed to be sufficient. For this reason the James who was his brother must have been the well-known James who was the Lords brother and who wrote the epistle of James.
Most commentators agree that the epistle was written at a late date, some even giving a date far after the destruction of Jerusalem. The beginning of Gnosticism was evident when the epistle was written. It also appears Jude was familiar with the passages in 2Pe 1:5; 2Pe 2:1-18, for he finds their expression so well suited to his purpose that he uses them with slight modification. (Jud 1:3-18.) Some argue that perhaps Peter was familiar with Jude when he wrote his epistle. This is, of course, another possibility. No exact date can be given, but if Jude was familiar with Peters writing and he wrote before the siege of Jerusalem, then the date would probably be between A.D. 65 and 70. Nothing is known concerning the place of writing.
Jude identifies his readers three ways; the called, beloved, and kept. Although many Christians often argue as to the way in which God calls, the scripture is quite clear that the call of God is given for every man and is given through the gospel. (2Th 2:13-14). This gives added meaning to the urgency of carrying the good news to every man; and seeing that the gospel is preached in every season and in every nation. The word for called is used for summoning a man to a responsibility or to a feast or festival, or to a court and judgment. All three senses have some significance here, but it seems the responsibility as being a member of Gods army and the feast at the Word of God has added significance to the Christian. The call to a court judgment would have significance to everyone, but especially to the non-Christian.
Beloved is a term that grips the very soul of man. This is not only the nature of the call, but the nature of the caller and the nature of the one who responds to the call. In love is the real motive for response as well as the real motive for offering the way of escape (the scheme of redemption) for man. Man responds (becomes beloved in his own nature through regeneration) because he is beloved of God.
The power of God to keep the Christian from all adversaries and guard him from all his enemies is emphasized at the beginning and the end of the epistle. The apostasy described and warned against will certainly make life miserable for the saint, but this misery is nothing when compared to the glory that shall follow. Gods ability to keep his saints in their chosen state of redemption is without contest. As long as the individual saint chooses to remain in that group which God has pre-planned and predestined to be saved, he will be kept (Jud 1:1) and guarded (Jud 1:24) by God. Of course, the individual is free to leave this guarded group if he should choose, for God has not taken his will from him. The book of Jude becomes more than a strong statement of woe against the apostate, it becomes a warning to the saint not to choose the road of apostasy.
The determination and power of God to keep those who continue to choose to remain with Him is nowhere more clearly set forth than in the book of Romans. If God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:31-39.
Judes starting point for his discussion on apostasy is beautiful indeed, although briefly stated. The majestic grandeur of being kept for Jesus Christ culminates in Judes prayer for multiplied mercy, peace and love for his readers. Mercy is the sympathetic good performed on our behalf, then tranquility of soul is ours because this good (salvation) has been performed. His love is multiplied as we become like He is . . . altogether lovely.
In this section we already see a pattern of expression that Jude uses in a beautiful way: the triad. Three triads are used in these two verses: (1) Jude, servant, brother; (2) sanctified, preserved, called; (3) mercy, love, peace. More than a dozen such triplets are used in the epistle.
Commentary on Jud 1:1-2 by Burton Coffman
THE GENERAL LETTER OF JUDE
Jud 1:1 –Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:
For the significance of this verse in understanding the authorship and date of the epistle, see in the introduction.
James … One of the brothers of Jesus Christ (Mat 13:55), and therefore, at first, not a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ whom he here acknowledges as his Lord (Joh 7:2-5).
Servant … The word for “servant” here is (Greek: [@doulos]),[1] meaning one “born into slavery,” thus witnessing to the fact of Jude’s being “twice born,” having experienced the new birth. Although the meaning of this word in the Greek is “slave,” the translators have wisely rendered it “servant,” because of the degrading associations connected with the other word.
And brother of James … This is added by way of identification, and also as a basis of his expecting to be heard. “It is almost impossible that an apostle should have urged such a claim, and yet not have stated the much higher claim of his own office.”[2] The powerful inference, of course, is that the writer of Jude was not an apostle.
Called … in the New Testament always has the sense of a call accepted and obeyed.
Beloved in God … Here we have “a parallel to the Pauline in Christ.”[3] One’s being either “in God” or “in Christ” being automatically equivalent to his being in the other, it is clear that here is another New Testament witness to the conception reaching back to the Lord himself of the “corporate body” of God’s people.
And kept for Jesus Christ … Wallace noted that, “The verb here translated kept points toward Christ’s return.”[4]
[1] Delbert R. Rose, Beacon Bible Commentary, Vol. 10 (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1967), p. 428.
[2] Alfred Plummer, Ellicott’s Bible Commentary, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 508.
[3] David H. Wheaton, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1275.
[4] David H. Wallace, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 1040.
Jud 1:2 –Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied.
Jude’s fondness for triads is evident throughout the letter. In these first two verses we have: (1) three names: Jude, Jesus Christ, and James, then (2) three forms of relation: servant, Lord (Master), and brother, then (3) mercy, peace, and love. In Jud 1:5-10, we have three examples of apostasy: (4) Israel of the Exodus, the rebel angels, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. There follows: (5) a three-fold characterization of the evil men as walking in the ways of Cain, Balaam, and Korah.
Grace, mercy, and peace … This follows closely the sentiment of Paul’s “grace, mercy, and peace” (2Ti 1:2).
Commentary on Jud 1:1-2 by Gary Hampton
Assurance for the Christian
The author calls himself Jude, or Judas, which literally means “renowned.” He also says he is the brother of James, who is thought to be the one so outstanding in the church at Jerusalem (Act 15:13; Gal 2:9). If so, he would also have been the brother of our Lord (Gal 1:19). That would likewise make Jude Jesus’ brother (Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3). Like his brothers, Jude did not believe Jesus was the Son of God during Christ’s personal ministry on earth (Joh 7:1-9). However, Christ’s resurrection seems to have convinced him since he is numbered as one of those in the upper room in Act 1:12-14. It also appears Jude was married. His wife traveled with him on his journeys (1Co 9:5).
He calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ.” The word rendered “servant” literally means “slave,” not as one forced to work, but one who willingly chooses to serve another. He is writing to the “called,” which includes all the followers of Christ (1Th 2:12; 2Th 2:13-15). The called are said to be “sanctified by God the Father.” That is, Christians were set apart by the gift of God’s own Son on the cross of Calvary (Joh 3:16-17; Rom 5:8; Rom 8:37-39). They are also said to be “preserved” in Jesus Christ (Jud 1:1). In order to be so preserved, Jude urged them to keep themselves in the love of God (verse 21). Jude’s desire for them was that God’s love would be multiplied to them along with His mercy and peace. Woods said that mercy, peace and love are the three blessings needed most by readers of Jude from his day to the present (Jud 1:2).
Commentary on Jud 1:1-2 by David Hersey
Jud 1:1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ: Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
Jude here identifies himself by name and gives two additional pieces of information which serve to identify him to his immediate readership. Jude affirms that he is first a servant of Jesus Christ, and then secondly a brother to James. The apostle James was long dead at the writing of this epistle and the only other person in scripture who was identified as a brother to Jude or Judas was James the son of Joseph, half-brother to Jesus Christ. Obviously the writer felt this was all the identification necessary in order to convey the authenticity of the epistle.
“a bondservant of Jesus Christ”–Before identifying himself as the brother of James, Jude chose to first proclaim that he was a bondservant of Jesus Christ. Obviously this distinction carries the greater weight of the two forms of identification. The application we should take from this is that even though this man was a brother to Jesus Christ Himself, the most important distinction any disciple could have would be that of a bondservant of Jesus Christ.
The word “bondservant” comes from the Greek word “doulos” which literally means either a slave or a bondservant. A bondservant is a person bound in servitude to another human being as an instrument of labor. Sometimes someone who owed a debt they could not pay would offer themselves as bondservants until such time as the debt was satisfied. This is the relationship which Jude claimed to be in towards Jesus Christ. Jude was not the only inspired writer to assume such a position in regards to Jesus Christ. Paul claimed this relationship with Jesus Christ in Rom 1:1 and with God in Tit 1:1. Paul declared “Epaphras” to be a “bondservant” of Christ in Col 4:12. In Jas 1:1 he claimed to be a bondservant to both God and Jesus Christ. And Peter declared himself to be a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ in 2Pe 1:1. In every case mentioned, the same Greek word, “doulos” was used.
It is no accident these inspired writers used this designation. Scripture teaches us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23) and as a consequence of that are dead in their trespasses (Col 2:12). Paul taught in Eph 2:5 that those who are dead are made alive together with Christ. This was accomplished through the atoning work of Jesus on the cross when He shed His blood for the sins of mankind. With His death, Jesus Christ satisfied the death penalty each and ever accountable individual owes for their transgressions. There is a penalty associated with sin. This penalty is death (Rom 6:23). Jesus paid that penalty at great personal cost and thereby placed us in the position of owing Him our very lives. While Jesus paid this sin debt for all, Christians are not free to live their lives as they see fit.
Because of what Jesus did on the cross for all mankind, a debt which we can never repay has been paid for us. We owe our lives to Jesus Christ. This is a debt we can never repay. Christians are called to offer their bodies a living sacrifice to God in Rom 12:1. Sacrifices are required to be of the free will nature. Therefore Christians are called to offer their lives as bondservants to Christ. Being made free from the sin which enslaves us and kills us, we willingly offer ourselves as bondservants to Jesus Christ. This relationship of a bondservant to Christ is described by Paul in 1Co 7:22-23, “For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ’s bondservant. Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men.”
The immediate context of 1Co 7:22-23 is for Christians not to strive for social or economic betterment to the point they would fail to seek first the kingdom of God. The social status of an individual has no bearing on their standing with God. The application we can make from this in addition to the immediate context is that there was a price paid for us and that we should seek more to be a bondservant of Christ than any other position on earth.
A bondservant remains in voluntary service until one of two things occurs. Either the debt is paid or the bondservant dies during the period of time required to satisfy the debt owed. Since it is the Christians very life which is to be offered as a living sacrifice it is understood that the cost of salvation can never be fully repaid to Jesus by mankind. There is simply nothing mankind can do, either collectively or individually that can repay what it cost Jesus to offer us salvation. There is no way we can take Jesus off the cross or make it unnecessary for Him to have been there. We cannot repay what Jesus gave up for us. The only thing we have to offer in return for Jesus’ amazing gift is a lifetime of grateful and obedient servitude. Such is the bondservant aspect of our relationship with Jesus Christ.
We are literally to be in voluntary bondage to Christ Jesus and as such, we are obligated to conduct ourselves as true bondservants. True bondservants serve their master obediently and faithfully for the duration of their bondage. In the case of a Christian, this term of service is for life.
There are many aspects of the Christians relationship with Jesus Christ. Each one has a bearing on the attitude with which we should conduct and portray ourselves both in the sight of God and in the sight of mankind. Another aspect of a Christian’s relationship is one of friendship. In speaking to His disciples, Christ had this to say about friendship in Joh 15:14-15, “Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you. No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known unto you.” Friendship, like bond service is another aspect of our relationship with Christ. This aspect of ones relationship is dependant upon our obedience to Christ. The faithful Christian must be aware that apart from obedience, there is no relationship with Christ at all. John wrote that those who do not obey Christ do not even know Him in 1Jn 2:3-4.
A third aspect of our relationship with God is one of fellowship. John confirms this in 1Jn 1:3, where by inspiration he writes, “…and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ”. A fourth aspect of our relationship with God is one of family, Mat 12:50, “For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” While bond service is certainly not the only the aspect of our relationship with God, it is indeed the foundational one upon which all other forms of our relationship with God depend.
“to them that are called”–Speaking here of Christians. Christians are:
1) called to be saints (1Co 1:2)
2) called into the fellowship Jesus Christ (1Co 1:9)
3) called by His grace (Gal 1:15)
4) called for freedom (Gal 5:13)
5) called in one hope (Eph 4:4-5)
6) called in one body (Col 3:15)
7) called into the kingdom of Christ (1Th 2:12)
8) called through the gospel (2Th 2:14-15)
9) called to life (1Ti 6:12)
10) called to glory and virtue (2Pe 1:3)
11) called with a holy calling (2Ti 1:9)
12) called out of darkness into His marvelous light (1Pe 2:9)
13) called to His glory (1Pe 5:10)
14) and called to be the sons of God (1Jn 3:1)
The Greek word for “called” in the context of Jude’s salutation is ‘kletos’ (klay-tos’), which carries the meaning of having been invited or appointed. It comes from the primary word ‘kello’ which means to ‘hail’ or to ‘urge’ or to persuade by words. Another word we recognize in the Greek language is the word ‘Ekklesia’ which is a compound word made up of ‘Ek’ which is a primary preposition denoting origin or in other words the point from where action or motion proceeds. An illustration would be, ‘the boy came out from, or out of his hiding place’. The second Greek word which makes up the word ‘Ekklesia’ is the word ‘kaleo’ which means to ‘call forth’. This word has the same primary root as ‘kletos’ which was used here in Jud 1:1. The word ‘Ekklesia’ therefore carries the idea of being called or hailed out from something or somewhere. The Greek word, ‘Ekklesia” is the word which today is translated as church. The church is then those who have been called out from the darkness, into the light. Called to be Christians. When Jude address his letter to “them that are called”, he addressed it to Christians.
Jude wrote his epistle to Christians in the first century with an immediate application to their circumstances. But the letter was addressed to Christians in general. While Jude’s epistle may have addressed the urgent need at the time it was written, the message contained therein most definitely has an application to all who have been ‘called’. When Jude addressed his epistle to the “called” he addressed it to the body of Christ, also known as the church (Col 1:18; Col 1:24 ).
“sanctified by God the Father”
Those who are called are characterized as being sanctified in God the Father. The Greek word for “sanctified” in this case is “Agapao” which means to be loved. The ASV renders this phrase as “Beloved in God the Father” which is probably a more correct translation. This of course extends only to those who answer God’s call. The call of God goes out to the whole world. Whosoever is the range of God’s calling (Joh 3:16, Rev 22:17). While many are called, scripture plainly teaches that relatively speaking, only few will be be chosen (Mat 22:14). Those who are chosen are here said to be “beloved” in God. This echoes the teaching of Paul in 2Th 2:13-14, “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“and kept for Jesus Christ”–Kept continually, (so the perfect tense means) for Jesus Christ until the day of His coming. This speaks to the eternal security of the Christian. Peter wrote concerning this in 1Pe 1:5, “Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Paul wrote in 2Ti 4:18, “The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will save me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom (be) the glory forever and ever. Amen”. John wrote about this security in Joh 10:28-29, “and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given (them) unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch (them) out of the Father’s hand”. Paul had some more very comforting and emphatic words with regard to the security of the Christian in Rom 8:38-39, “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”.
These are all comforting words for the Christian. However, out of these and other such passages has risen the doctrine of ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’. This doctrine has its roots in Calvinism whose teaching is summed up in five major points called “TULIP”. Each word standing for a particular element of this doctrine. The five are as follows:
1) Total Depravity which teaches that at birth everyone is born into slavery to sin and is utterly unable to choose on their own to follow God and be saved. In other words, none of us, without direct intervention from God can make the conscious choice to avail ourselves of God’s universal offer of salvation made available to all. See Joh 3:16 and Rev 22:17.
2) Unconditional Election which asserts that God chose before creation those whom he will bring to Himself. See 1Ti 2:4.
3) Limited Atonement which asserts that only the sins of those elected before creation are atoned for by the blood of Jesus. See Heb 10:10.
4) Irresistible Grace which teaches that for those whom God has preselected to eternal life, grace cannot be resisted. The elected sinner is compelled by God to come to Christ. See Heb 12:15.
5) Perseverance of the Saints which teaches that because of God’s sovereignty, his divine purpose cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else. Therefore, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. In other words, once one is saved, they are always saved and God will not allow them to fall.
This is what happens when men take selected scriptures and form a manmade doctrine around them without regard to what the whole of God’s word teaches. It is vital when considering the will of God that we act in accordance with the whole will of God and not selected portions of it. Calvinism with its core teachings represents God as a respecter of persons, teaching that God chose who will be saved and who will not and nothing man can do will ever change that. In other words, those inheriting eternal life do so because they were chosen by God from among the rest of humanity to do so. There is no free will, and there is no personal volition in regards to one’s salvation. Those in heaven are there because God chose them to be there and those who are chosen have no choice in the matter, being saved without regard to whether or not they even desire it.
As for the Perseverance of the Saints, or ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’, there are literally hundreds of scriptures which speak against this doctrine. All it takes is for one of these passages to be in contradiction with the doctrine of ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’ in order to invalidate it. A contradiction occurs when one of the available choices cannot be true. The doctrine of ‘OSAS’ teaches that the Christian is preserved by the power of God to salvation in opposition to the will of the individual. In other words, it teaches that a Christian is incapable of so sinning that the result would be the loss of salvation. If this is true then Jas 5:19-20 cannot be true. “My brethren, if any among you err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.” The doctrine of OSAS teaches one cannot fall from grace, yet in Gal 5:4, we see NT Christians being told they did. The doctrine of OSAS teaches that a Christian cannot fail of God’s grace yet the NT Christians were exhorted to be diligent lest they would in Heb 12:15. If the possibility of failing from God’s grace did not exist, there would be no reason to warn Christians about it.
Yes, Christians are kept by the power of God. Preserved and upheld till the day of judgment. This preserving and keeping is accomplished through the word of God when it is taken to heart and obeyed. It is through the word of God that we learn how to respond to the call of God and how to live our lives in such a way that we will be preserved. We are kept by God, but not unconditionally. We as Christians have a responsibility in God’s redemptive process. It is our responsibility to respond to the call of the Lord and to do those things in accordance with His will. Only through our obedience to His will as revealed in His word are we kept by God unto salvation. Without that obedience, there is no preservation of the saints.
Jud 1:2 –Mercy, peace and love be multiplied to you.
As this study progresses, it becomes apparent that Jude uses groups of three several times to make his illustrations. In these first two verses we see three forms of relationship between Christians and God: servant, Lord (Master), and brother. Then here we see mercy, peace, and love. In Jud 1:5-10, we have three examples of apostasy: Israel of the Exodus, the rebel angels, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. There follows a three-fold portrayal of evil men as walking in the ways of Cain, Balaam, and Korah.
Grace, mercy, and peace … This follows closely the sentiment of Paul’s “grace, mercy, and peace” (2Ti 1:2).
Jude mentions love and mercy again in Jud 1:21 where he refers to the mercy of Jesus which we are to seek. God has many attributes to His immutable nature. He is Just, merciful, graceful and loving. With God, all of these attributes are absolute. Meaning God is absolutely just (Isa 45:21 ), meaning fair and without partiality. God is love, grace and mercy in totality. God’s love is what compels Him to show mercy and grace. God would have been well within his rights to just let man die when he sins, but His love for mankind compelled Him to offer mankind a way of redemption despite the personal cost to Himself. Mankind did nothing to deserve God’s grace and mercy and can do nothing to merit or pay for it in any way. Those who are dead have nothing to offer in return for their lives.
Consider the love it took for a Just God to send His beloved son down to die at the hands of man, and to allow the death of His murdered son to be a substitutionary death penalty for man. To break that down into terms easy to understand, suppose a man perpetrates a crime against you so serious that he faces the death penalty. You know that justice demands he pay the death penalty but you don’t want this individual to have to suffer that. You want to give him a second chance. That is mercy.
So faced with the demands of justice, you send your only son, who is completely innocent, to death row where this man murders your only son and you allow that death at his hands to be a substitute for the death penalty he owed in the first place. Forget about the fact that he murdered your son. You aren’t going to hold the murder of your son against him. The reason you can do this is because your son volunteered to go do this for him knowing fully well that he was going to die at his hands. Now, not only is this man who justly owed a death penalty for his crime against you going to be forgiven by you, he is now extended an invitation by you to come live with you in your house for all eternity. Because of your love and mercy, this individual has been given an opportunity to be in eternal fellowship with you and your son which he murdered. That is grace.
That is the mercy, peace and love that Jude wished to be multiplied to his readership. Let us consider Paul’s words in 2Co 9:15, “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!”
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
NOTES ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE
1. On the general form of Judes Address see notes on 1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1, and Introductions to 1 and 2 Pet., pp. 79, 219. Jude has, in common with 2 Peter, , a similarly general description of those to whom the Epistle is directed, the verb , and the word , which, however, is here combined with and . If we suppose that 2 Peter is here copying Jude, we must also suppose either that he went back to 1 Peter for part of his formula, or that (as Professor Harnack thinks) he forged both addresses, but adopted a simpler and more archaic form than that of Jude. But the easier inference is that Jude followed Peter; indeed, this is a necessary conclusion, if it is allowed that Jude here uses Pauline phrases.
Five personages of the name of Jude occur in apostolic or sub-apostolic times. (1) Judas Iscariot. (2) The Apostle , Luk 6:16; Act 1:13; Joh 14:22; this son of James is commonly identified with Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus. (3) Judas, the Lords brother, brother also of James, Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3, where he is named last or last but one. (4) Judas Barsabbas, Act 15:22-33. (5) Judas, the last Jewish bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian, Eus. H.E. iv. 5. 3.
The author of our Epistle gives two descriptions of himself -(1) : (2) . The first does not mean that he was an apostle (see note on 2Pe 1:1), and ver. 17 is generally understood to mean that he did not so regard himself. His brother James also was not an apostle. The second identifies our Jude with the brother of the Lord.
But why does he not call himself the brother of the Lord? Clement of Alexandria in his commentary, which still exists in a Latin version, answered the question thus-Judas, qui catholicam scripsit epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph exstans ualde religiosus et cum sciret propinquitatem domini, non tamen dicit se ipsum fratrem eius esse, sed quid dixit? Judas seruus Jesu Christi utpote domini, frater autem Jacobi. Zahn (Einleitung, ii. p. 84) adopts this explanation, which is probably correct. The sense is, Jude, the slave, I dare not say the brother, of Jesus Christ, but certainly the brother of James.
The description, brother of James, cannot have been needed as an introduction or recommendation, for the brethren of the Lord were all held in high esteem (Act 1:14). Certainly Jude must have been well known to the people whom he is addressing. Nor can the description be taken to show that he is writing to Churches of Palestine or to Jewish Christians, by whom St. James was held in special honour. For, apart from the fact that St. James would not need his help, the brethren of the Lord were known to the Gentile Churches, for instance, to the Corinthians (1Co 9:5), and may quite possibly have visited and preached in Corinth.
. To the Called, which in God the Father are beloved and kept unto Jesus Christ. The Father is our Father. is a substantive, as in Rom 1:6; 1Co 1:24. The word is not used by Peter in either of his Epistles, and belongs to the Pauline vocabulary; the same thing is true of , ver. 3; and , ver. 19. can hardly mean by for the preposition appears to be never to denote the agent. Nor is it possible to translate who in God are beloved by me and kept unto Jesus Christ because both participles must be reffered to the same agent. Yet again, there is no instance of being used in that general sense which belongs to or in the Pauline Epistles (unless 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1 are in point), and,even if there were, the sense required, who in God are beloved by God is not obtained without difficulty. But this seems to be the meaning. In ver. 21 St. Jude has . St. Peter does not speak of the love of God, and her again we may possibly detect the same affinity between St. Paul and St. Jude that has already appeared in the word .
The variants and have very little support. The letter was probably suggested by the embarrassment of the text; the former shows that at an early date the recipients of the Epistle were thought to have been Gentiles.
The Epistle cannot have been meant for the Church at large. It is directed to some group of Churches in which St. Jude was personally interested, and called forth by definite and peculiar circumstances.
3. . Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to do battle for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. With compare the language of 2Pe 1:5, 2Pe 1:10, 2Pe 1:15, 2Pe 1:3:14. These repeated phrases have caught St. Judes ear.
is not used elsewhere in the New Testament; the preposition merely strengthens the verb, but the simple . is as strong a word as could be found. For cf. Act 16:4; 1Co 11:2, 1Co 11:15:3; 2Pe 2:21; Spitta thinks that the use of the word here is suggested by this last passage.
. The saints is here another name for Christians, as in Act 9:13, Act 9:32, Act 9:41; Rom 12:13; Heb 6:10; Rev 5:8, but the word is not used as a substantive by Mark, Luke, John (in Gospel or Epistles), James, or Peter. See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 56, 57. , in defence of which men are to contend, is not trust or the inner light, but a body of doctrine, dogmatic and practical, which is given to them by authority, is fixed and unalterable, and well known to all Christians. It is your most holy faith, ver. 20, a foundation on which the readers are to build themselves up. It combined intellectual and moral truth. See Sanday and Headlam on Rom 1:17. It had been attacked by men who turned the grace of our God into lasciviousness, that is to say, by Antinomians; but these men were mockers, ver. 18, and, from the emphasis with which Jude introduces his quotation from Enoch, ver. 14, we may presume that they mocked at the Parousia.
Judes language about the Faith is highly dogmatic, highly orthodox, highly zealous. His tone is that of a bishop of the fourth century. The character may be differently estimated, but its appearance at this early date, before Montanism and before Gnosticism, is of great historical significance. Men who used such phrases believed passionately in a creed.
Lachmann, and some of the older school of commentators, placed a comma after , and took with : but recent scholars generally reject this unnatural punctuation.
St. Jude says that he had been busy with, or intent upon, writing to his people an ordinary pastoral Epistle dealing with general topics of instruction and exhortation, but found it necessary to change his plan and utter this stirring cry to arms. Evidently he is referring to some definite and unexpected circumstance. News had been brought to him of the appearance of the false teachers; possibly he had just received 2 Peter; if so, we can understand the use which he makes of that Epistle.
De Wette, Brckner, Spitta, Zahn think that the writing referred to by the was not an ordinary Epistle, but a treatise of some considerable length; but the age was hardly one of treatises, and there is nothing in the text to support the idea.
4. . For certain men have crept in privily, who of old were appointed in scripture unto this doom. introduces the reason of . For B has , a vulgar form; see Blass, p. 43. The aorist is here not distinguishable in sense from the perfect; as to the meaning of the compound verb, refer to note on , 2Pe 2:1. is most naturally taken to mean in the Old Testament, in the many denunciations of false prophets. The word, however, does not always denote a long interval of time; hence Zahn and Spitta would render, who were some time ago appointed in a writing for this doom, and find here a direct reference to 2Pe 2:3. But though the Greeks (more especially the poets; see references in Liddell and Scott) sometimes use in a loose colloquial way, just as we use long ago of things that happened quite recently, we must not give the word this sense without good reason. Jude could hardly have spoken of 2 Peter as written , unless he were looking back over a space of twently or thirty years. Unless we are to suppose that the two Epistles were separated by such an interval as this, the explanation of Zahn and Spitta can hardly be adopted.
Nevertheless we have here a reference to 2Pe 2:3. As used by Jude, has no meaning, for he has entirely omitted to say what the doom is. The best explanation of this curious difficulty is that he was writing in haste, with 2 Peter fresh in his mind, and that his words are suggested by in the Petrine passage. If this be so, we have here one of the strongest proofs of the posteriority of Jude.
Some support for this view may be found in the weakness of the various explanations which have been found for . Wiesinger, Hofmann, Schott find the key in , they have wickedly crept in, and this is their judgment. But, we must answer, the creeping in is their sin, not their punishment. Zahn also (Einleitung, ii. 80) goes back for his solution to the main verb; they have crept in, and their appearance is a judgment, not on them, but on the Church, inasmuch as it will lead to a sifting out of bad Christians from among the good. Cf. Joh 9:39, , , : the reader may refer to Westcotts note upon this passage. But it seems evident that here the is one which hangs over the intruders themselves. Huther found the explanation of in the of ver. 5: but this verb stands much too far off, and does not directly apply to the evildoers in question; further, if this had been the writers meaning, we should have expected , not , after . Spitta finds it in the words : their judgment is that they are impious and deny the Lord. But here again impiety and denial are sins, not sentences. It may be replied that sin may be regarded as its own punishment, but this idea certainly does not belong to Jude. Not one of these views is satisfactory. Each commentator destroys the opinion of others without establishing his own, and we are really driven to suppose that St. Jude, in his hurry, picked out St. Peters word without observing that it required an explanation.
. The grace is the , or the gospel (1Pe 1:10); it promises a freedom which these impious men turn into lasciviousness.
. Cf. 2Pe 2:1, . St. Peters phrase is certainly the finer, and is probably the original: it is marked by his favourite iambic rhythm; the explains and limits , and here, as in other passages to be noticed as we proceed, Jude has a tendency to exaggerate and harden the thought of St. Peter. is so strong a phrase that it has been regarded as impossible. Hence K L P and several other authorities, followed by the textus receptus, insert after : and many commentators, who do not accept this reading, yet translate in the same sense, the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ. But this misrendering is needless. If Christ may be called , He may also be called in distinction not from the Father, but from all false masters. Cf. note on ver. 25.
5. . cf. 2Pe 1:12, . 1:15. : 1:13, 3:1, See note on , ver. 3. Either Peter has caught up and reiterated certain unimportant words from Jude, or Jude had read the first chapter of the Petrine Epistle and adopts from it words which, from their iteration there, were likely to catch the ear. The latter is the more probable view. Jude exhibits manifest tokens of haste, abbreviation, and confusion. A glance back at the preceding Epistle will show that St. Peter uses remind quite naturally, where he is recalling to the memory of his readers lessons that they had certainly often been taught. Jude reminds his people of the instances of judgment, none of which belonged to the catechism, and some of which, at least the story of Michael, may have been quite new to them. The also is difficult. Probably we must find the antithesis in and : they are impious and deny the Lord, but God punishes such men. Certainly the sense is more clearly unfolded in 2 Peter; and this is a remarkable fact, because Jude is the more skilful writer of the two.
. Though once for all ye know all things. But the things which Christians know once for all are those which are included in the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not historical instances of Gods wrath. Here again we have a confused reminiscence of 2Pe 1:12, where the words are quite intelligible.
For the comparison between the instances of Judgment as they are given in the two Epistles, see Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 221. The first instance, that of the destruction of the sinful Israelites in the desert, is peculiar to Jude. It reminds us of Heb 3:18-2; 1Co 10:5-11. Its introduction here disturbs the strictly chronological order of the instances given in 2 Peter.
. That the Lord, when He had brought the people safe out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them which believed not. By the Lord is no doubt meant Christ, cf. 1Co 10:4, 1Co 10:9. With cf. , 1Co 12:28; , Heb 9:28. Here it marks a strong contrast, and sharpens the point of the warning. It is true that the Lord saved Israel from Egypt; yet notwithstanding He afterwards slew the faithless. So he has saved you, but so also He may slay you.
The text of the verse is uncertain. K L insert a second after . , many Fathers, and versions place after (). For K L and others read . K L and many others have C A B and many versions with Didymus and Jerome , and there is some inferior authority for . The second is probably a mere slip; the transposition of may be due to a desire to provide an antecedent for though, if so, it involves a grammatical error, as , cannot mean firstly. for is again a slip, or an attempt at emendation. The variants and for are also emendations; the copyists did not feel quite certain what Jude meant.
6. . The Second Instance; the Fallen Angels.
And the angels who kept not their own principality, but forsook their proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude probably found in his copy of 2 Peter (see note on the corresponding passage), but it is just possible that he remembered to have read of bonds in Enoch. (it is an Aristotelian word, while is Platonist) occurs also in Rom 1:20. The absence of the article with is of no consequence, the particular angels being defined by the following article and participles, cf. 1Pe 1:10.
The principality of the angels is the special government or province intrusted to them by God. The passage which lay at the foundation of Jewish belief on this point is Deu 32:8, , , , -where represent Hebrew words which in A.V. and R.V. are rendered according to the number of the children of Israel. The passage was taken to mean that God assigned the government of the several nations to guardian angels. Probably this view was older than the Septuagint, for there are many indications in the Old Testament that the gods of the nations were regarded as wicked angels. There was also another tradition that the seven planets were ruled by the seven chiefs of the angels of service. The planets, wandering stars (see below, ver. 13), were wicked stars, because they had broken loose from their appointed station. Hence their angels were punished. Enoch 18. 13 sqq., And what I saw there was horrible-seven stars like great burning mountains, and like spirits, which besought me. The Angel said, This is the place where heaven and earth terminate; it serves as a prison for the stars of heaven and the host of heaven. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of God before their rising, because they did not come forth at the appointed time. And He was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated in the year of the mystery. Cf. Enoch 21:2 sqq. Jude says that they are bound till the judgment of the great day. This phrase also is suggested by Enoch, where we find , (ed. Charles, pp. 85, 86. see also Gfrrer, Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 394; Harnacks note on Hermas, Sim. 8. 3:3). According to these traditions the sin of the fallen angels was pride or disobedience. This is the view adopted by Origen, in Ezech. Hom. ix. 2 (Lomm. i. 12 1), Inflatio, superbia, arrogantia, peccatum diaboli est; et ob haec delicta ad terras migrauit de coelo.
By the side of these ran another stream of tradition based on Gen. 6., according to which the sin of the fallen angels was lust. Justin, Apol. ii. 5, combines both, , , .
St. Peter does not specify the sin of the fallen angels, but he is evidently referring to their . St. Jude is not content with a passing allusion; he develops and confuses it. When he says that the angels forsook their proper habitation (came down from heaven to earth), he is thinking of Gen_6.; when he says that they kept not their own principality, of Deu 32:8. Yet after all he has not made his point clear. For how could either the false teachers or their victims be said ?
7. The Third Instance; the Cities of the Plain.
Jude omits the Deluge, and here does not mention Lot.
. The other cities were Admah and Zeboim, Deu 29:23; Hos 11:8. There were five cities of the plain, but Zoar was spared. , like these fallen angels; here at last the is brought out. The compound is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, but is used by the LXX. in Gen 38:24 and elsewhere. The may, as Hofmann thinks, add the notion of going outside the moral law. In we have another illustration of the manner in which Jude used 2 Peter. The latter has (2:10) . Jude has caught up this phrase, but by adding has made it refer to the sin connected with the name of Sodom,-a sin which, though horribly common in heathen Greece and Rome, was never alleged against teachers who could in any sense be called Christians. The language of 2Pe 2:6, 2Pe 2:10 is greatly exaggerated here. Further, St. Peter does not fall into the error of saying that the sin of Sodom was like that of the angels, for the fallen angels could not be said .
(here only in the New Testament) properly means a sample or specimen; it is here used in the sense of the classical or the later (2Pe 2:6), a pattern, or example, or warning. is best taken with : they are set forth as a warning, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. Jude omits all mention of Lot, fixing his mind only on the divine vengeance, and here again sharpens and hardens the words of St. Peter, .
8. , the false teachers of ver. 4. , to dream. Their dreams may be those of prophecy; these false teachers being also false prophets (2Pe 2:1), who support their evil doctrines by pretended revelations; cf. Deu 13:1, Deu 13:3, Deu 13:5. This explanation is favoured by von Soden and Spitta, and is much the best. Or possibly, as some hold, dream may be used in the sense of vain imagination. The difficulty is that, though the Latin somnium is used in this sense, the Greek is not. Nevertheless this is the interpretation of Clement of Alexandria, Strom. iii. 2. II, ( ). most probably means attack, and should be corrected to . So also Adumb. in Ep. Judae, hi somniantes, hoc est, qui somniant imaginatione sua libidines et reprobas cupiditates. The meaning involved in the filthy dreamers of the A.V. may be confidently rejected, because, as Alford points out, the participle belongs not only to , but equally to and .
. Here Jude is adapting 2Pe 2:10, and the passages should be carefully compared. Peter says, the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of trial, and keep the unjust under punishment till the day of judgment, but especially those who walk after the flesh and despise lordship. Self-willed daring ones, they fear not to blaspheme dignities. He has passed away from Sodom, and is speaking of the False Teachers; it is they who despise lordship and rail at dignities. Jude says that the false teachers are like the people of the cities of the plain in that they despise lordship and blaspheme dignities. But it is only by a great effort of exegesis that we can fasten these two charges on the people of Sodom. Jude has abbreviated and confused his text. For and see notes on 2 Peter.
9. . But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a sentence of blasphemy, but said, May the Lord rebuke thee. That is to say, may the Lord rebuke thee for thy blasphemy. Peter says that the angels will not bring against dignities a railing accusation ( ), which is quite a different thing. See Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 217. is used here in its proper sense, to get a dispute decided, contend with an adversary in a court of law. The dative is governed by . For see 2Pe 2:11. is, of course, optative.
The incident is taken by St. Jude from the Assumption of Moses, as we are informed by Clement of Alexandria (Adumb. in Ep. Judae), Origen (de Princ. iii. 2. 1), and Didymus. The passage as given, perhaps loosely, by a Scholiast on Jude (text in Hilgenfeld, Nouum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum, i. p. 128) runs thus: . , , , . Here we see from that the dispute did not occur in the presence of the Lord; hence Jude omits St. Peters : again the meaning of comes out very clearly. Satan blasphemed Moses, claiming his body as that of a murderer. Michael would not tolerate his sin of blasphemy against the saint, yet abstains from openly charging him with blasphemy. The date of the Assumption is variously given; but as it was probably used by St. Paul in Gal 3:19, where Moses is called the of the law (the phrase in the Assumption as quoted by Gelasius Cyz. Acta Syn. Nicaen. ii. 18, p. 28, is : in the existing Latin version arbiter testamenti), it is also probably considerably older than that Epistle. Hilgenfeld thinks that it was written after 44 a.d.; others place it as early as 2 b.c. It is possible that Jude refers to the Assumption again in ver. 16.
10. . But these rail at whatsoever things they know not; and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed (or corrupted), R.V. The things that they know not are , , and generally the world of spirit to which these conceptions belong; the things which they understand are fleshly delight. Jude has made the rough-hewn sentence of 2Pe 2:12 much smoother and clearer; see also vers. 13 and 17. In particular he has corrected the awkward iteration of , , which is so characteristic of 2 Peter.
11. . Outside of the Gospels this phrase is used only in 1Co 9:16 and in the Apocalypse. It is rare in later writers, but occurs in a Fragment of Clement of Alexandria (Dindorf, vol. iii. p. 492), , which is quoted in the Didache.
Judes fourth instance is Cain, who is not introduced by Peter, and whose mention here has caused difficulty. De Wette and Arnaud thought that Cain here was a type of all wicked men. Schneckenburger, Spitta, von Soden, and Khl (the last with some hesitation) appeal to the Jerusalem Targum on Gen 4:7, where Cain is represented as the first sceptic and sophist, and as saying, Non est iudicium nec iudex, nec est aliud saeculum, nec dabitur merces bona iustis, nec ultio sumetur de improbis, neque per miserationem creatus est mundus, neque per miserationem gubernatur. The Targum is later than Jude; but the same idea is found in Philo, from whom it is possibly derived. See references in Siegfried. This explanation would give tolerable sense, but is much too artificial. The name Cain, standing as it does without qualification, must mean Cain the murderer. See Wisd. 10:3 (a passage which was probably in Judes mind as he wrote ver. 7), where Cain is the unrighteous man who fell away from her (Wisdom) in his anger, and perished himself in the rage wherewith he slew his brother. Hence Grotius, Oecumenius, and others rightly account for his introduction here by supposing Jude to mean that the false teachers murder mens souls. Cain, says Grotius. fratri uitam caducam ademit; illi fratribus adimunt aeternam. The same language has often been used in later times. We have before noticed the fiery zeal of Jude, and his tendency to exaggerate; see vers. 3, 7, 23.
The fifth instance is Balaam, who appears in 2 Peter also. Jude devotes less space to him, and again darkens the picture. Peter charges Balaam only with covetousness; Jude says that for the sake of money (, genitive of price) the false teachers fling themselves into the of Balaam-that is to say, into the sin of Baal Peor (Num. 25., 31:8; Rev 2:14). Hence the verb , which, like the Latin effundi in, is used of those who pour themselves out, fling themselves into sensual indulgence. Jude does not press the charge of greed and extortion so strongly as 2 Peter; he barely alludes to it here and in ver. 16; in his eyes the covetousness of the false teachers is as nothing in comparison with their uncleanness.
The sixth instance is Korah, who is not mentioned in 2 Peter.
Korah gainsaid Moses and Aaron (Num_16.) because Moses by Gods command had restricted the priesthood to the family of Aaron. He despised not Gods ordinances generally (as Huther, Ritschl, Alford, Khl think), but this particular ordinance. Jude must mean that those of whom he is speaking defied the authorities of the Church, and claimed the right to make rules for themselves. So he speaks of them just below as , in other words as making themselves their own presbyters; cf. 1Pe 5:2. Here we find support for the explanation of given on 2Pe 2:10. The dignities whom these false teachers blaspheme were the rulers of the Church. We notice in this verse that Jude possesses a certain copia uerborum, three different nouns, , , , are coupled with three different verbs, , , . It is clear that he was a better writer than 2 Peter, and in particular that he dislikes needless iteration. See on this point Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 225 sq.
12. . These are they who are spots in your love feasts. is undoubtedly the right reading, though A; C; have , cf. 2Pe 2:13. before is given by A B L, but omitted by K on account of the difficulty which it creates.
For the meaning of see Orpheus, Lithica, 614 (ed. G. Hermann), where the agate is described as , dappled with spots (Tyrwhitt thought that this treatise was composed as late as the reign of Constantius, but there is no reason for suspecting that the author invented this use of the word); Hesychius, . Thus the word is merely a variant for the of 2 Peter.
The R.V. translates these are they that are hidden rocks, following the Etym. Mag., which explains by . But in the Anthology, xi. 390, the two are expressly distinguished- and in Hom. Od. iii. the of 298 are the same as the of 293. The epithet hidden therefore must be struck out, and with it the notion of a hidden danger. Further, means a rock, not only in the sea, or on the beach, but in land, see Soph. Trach. 678; Theocritus, Epigr. iv. 6. Thus the word does not include an allusion to shipwreck, not indeed to danger of any kind. Hence the statements of suidas, , and of Hesychius, , (this he gives as an alternative explanation), are not strictly accurate. Nor is the note of Oecumenius, , , to be taken for more than it is worth, as the expression of his own opinion.
is feminine, hence there is a difficulty in the masculine article . We must supply either or , and translate these are the men who are spots, or these are the men who have been called spots. The insertion of the article seems to show that Jude had in his mind some definite passage where these men or men like them had been actually spoken of as spots. Thus it becomes probable that he is here directly referring to 2Pe 2:13. This is the opinion maintained by Spitta.
Dr. Chase dismisses this view with the remark that this ( ) is a regular form in apocalyptic literature. See for in stances Zec 1:10; Rev 7:14, Rev 7:11:4, Rev 7:14:4; Enoch 46. 3; Apoc. Peiri, 4. 7. 9. 14. 15. 16. The remark is true, but does not meet the point. The form is not specially apocalyptic (see Mat 3:3, Mat 3:17, and numberless other examples might be given from writings of all kinds). Either it points a reference to something that the readers know already, as in Rev 11:4, , these are the two olive trees that you have read of in Zec 4:3, or it answers the question, Who are these? identifying two known persons or classes of persons. But it does not convey fresh information about the persons. Thus is these are the men who blaspheme the way of righteousness ( is subject). Jude is quite aware of this difference, and uses both forms correctly; thus we have, ver. 16, , these men are murmurers; and on the other hand, , ver. 4, not Hence it is not probable that he would write of for . He must mean either these are the men whom everybody calls spots or these are the men whom some particular person has called so. The latter is the more probable, and Spittas opinion may therefore well be defended. An objection might be raised on the ground of Rev 14:4, , where no question has been distinctly asked; but even this case falls under the rule. The meaning is not these men are virgins, but these men are the virgins, whom you knew in the Church. There may again be a reference to some well-known phrase, for the second clause contains an apparent allusion to the familiar words follow thou me.
If we adopt the other rendering, these are they that are rocks, we must still regard the words as an allusion to some well-known passage. But none can be found. , 1Ti 1:19, is much too vague.
. Cf. 2Pe 2:13. , ., St Peter means while they share the feast with you. Judes language may bear the same sense, but he seems rather to give a different turn, while they carouse together, by themselves. We may possibly infer from and , ver. 19, that these men drew together at a separate part of the table, or even that they kept an Agape of their own; and the words are not conclusive against the latter hypothesis, for they may mean in the Agape of your community. Certainly the language of St. Jude leads us to infer that the division was more clearly marked than we should gather from 2 Peter, and this point again makes in favour of the priority of the latter.
. Shepherding themselves without fear. must be taken with not with , with which it yields no good sense. is the verb which expresses the whole authority of Christ, or of the priest, over the flock. The instance of Korah, employed in ver. 2, shows that Jude is here thinking of the latter. These men defied the authority of their rulers, made themselves their own shepherds, and yet feared no harm. If we think of the way in which Balaam is mentioned in Rev 2:14, it is tempting to suppose that one way in which they exhibited their lawlessness was by eating at the Agape. Dr. Chase (article on Jude in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible) thinks there may be a reference here to Eze 34:2, .
. Peter has . Jude, using only one figure, he calls his opponents Clouds which drop no water, and are blown past by winds. From teachers we expect the beneficent rain of doctrine and example: these men are like clouds which give no rain and only hide the sun; they are blown past and seen no more. There is a weak variant , tossed about an image of instability; the word is possibly suggested by Eph 4:14.
. The epithet means more than autumnal. means not autumn, the season of fruit ( : autumnus from augeo), but the fall of the year, the season just before winter, when growth has stopped, and the branches are bare. We may translate trees in the fall or even trees in winter. is probably suggested by , 2Pe 1:8. , twice dead, not only fruitless, but actually dead and incapable of bearing fruit; or not only dead, but uprooted; or, again, St. Jude may be thinking of these men no longer as trees, but as Christians; they were dead once in trespasses and sins, now again they have died by apostasy. If this last explanation is tenable, St. Jude may have been thinking of 2Pe 1:9, 2Pe 2:20, and strengthening the expression. , they are already cut off from their root; the root is either the Church () or Christ.
13. Wild waves of the sea, foaming up their own shames. The language is tinctured by reminiscences of Greek poetry; cf. Moschus, Idyll. v. 5, : Euripides, Herc. Fur. 851, , but the image is probably suggested by Isa 57:20.
. See note on ver. 6. We find an allusion to the sin of the planets also in Isa 14:12, where the king of Babylon is compared to the Day-star, son of the morning, who fell through pride. St. Jude here gives a more correct turn to the imagery than St. Peter, who speaks of springs and mists as punished by darkness, though at the same time he has departed somewhat from Enoch, who saw the stars of heaven imprisoned in a place of fire.
14. . But Enoch prophesied to these men also; his words strike them as well as others.
. Gen_5.; Enoch lx. 8, xciii. 3; Book of Jubilees, 7. The quotation which follows is a combination of passages from Enoch. And, lo, He comes with ten thousand of His holy ones to execute judgment upon them; and He will destroy the ungodly, and will convict all flesh of all that the sinners and ungodly have wrought and ungodly committed against Him, 1:9; Ye have slanderously spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness, 5:4; cf. also 27:2: the translation here given is that of Mr. Charles.
The earlier Fathers regarded this passage as showing that Enoch was inspired; Clement of Alexandria, Adumb, in Ep. Judae, his verbis prophetiam comprobat; Tertullian, de cultu fem. i. 3, eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet. In the time of Jerome many viewed it as a proof that Jude was not inspired, de uir. ill. 4, et quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonium a plerisque reiicitur. Augustine still held the more ancient and liberal view, de ciuitate dei, xv. 23, scripsisse quidem nonnulla diuina Enoch illum septimum ab Adam negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistula canonica Judas apostolus dicat.
After inserting this passage from Enoch, which speaks so distinctly of the coming of the Lord to judgment, St. Jude may have felt that no more remained to be said on this point; and this may have been the chief reason why he omitted the third chapter of 2 Peter.
16. . The substantive occurs here only in the New Testament. In the LXX. and are used of the Israelites who complained against God and Moses, Exo 15:24, Exo 15:17:3; Num 14:29. So here these false brethren murmur not against the trials of life, but against their superiors, God and the .
(this word again is ) means complaining of ones lot, querulous. But here again we must understand, not that the false teachers lacked the spirit of resignation, but that they were recalcitrant and grumbled against authority. occurs, apparently in the sense of uncomplaining, in a letter found on a papyrus of the second century b.c.; see Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 211; omitted in Eng. tr.
. Cf. 2Pe 2:18, . Judes phrase bears resemblance to Psa_143.(144.) 8, 11, . But it is probable that here again he is quoting from the Assumption of Moses vii. 21, et os eorum loquetur ingentia (the Greek text is not extant). (the phrase does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, though we find , Mat 22:16: , Luk 20:21) may come from Gen 19:21; Lev 19:15, or from the Assumption of Moses v. 16, qui enim magistri sunt doctores eorum illis temporibus erunt mirantes personas cupiditatum (Fritzsche corrects nobilitatum) et acceptiones munerum et peruendent iustitias accipiendo poenas. It has been observed that Jude does not attack the covetousness of the false teachers except here and in the word , ver. 11.
17. . But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. is placed in front of the sentence with great emphasis in opposition to the of ver. 16. A comparison with 2Pe 3:2 will show that either Peter has greatly complicated the expression of Jude, or Jude has greatly simplified that of Peter. The latter seems more probable; see ver. 10 above. The substance of this apostolic warning may be found in 1Ti 4:1 (where the words may introduce a prediction given orally by a Christian prophet); 2Ti 3:1-5; Act 20:29. These passages show that similar admonitions were current. But the exact form of the prophecy, as it is here expressed, is found only in 2Pe 3:3, and it is there given by an apostle as his own. Neither nor the following need be taken to show that St. Jude was referring to mere words, for is constantly used of scripture, and the phrase is familiar. But, even if the words are taken in their strict sense, the possibility of a direct quotation from 2 Peter is not excluded. St. Jude reminds his readers that the apostles had often said that mockers would come, and then proceeds to quote an apostolic document in which this saying was recorded in a particular shape. See Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, p. 70.
St. Jude here distinctly tells us that he was not an apostle himself.
18. . In the last time there shall be mockers walking after their own lusts of ungodlinesses. There is considerable authority for the insertion of before : it makes no difference in the sense, in such a case being merely equivalent to our inverted commas; see Blass, pp. 233, 286. K L P have () . is best taken as objective genitive after , cf. 2Pe 2:10. The R.V. (text) translates ungodly lusts, finding here the same Hebraism as in , 2Pe 2:1; but St. Jude does not use this idiom ( , ver. 9, is certainly not an instance), and it is needless to force it upon him here.
St. Judes text differs from that of 2 Peter in the following points:-(1) He has for . Cf. , 1Pe 1:20. Judes phrase is less Hebraistic than that of 2 Peter, and better Greek than that of 1 Peter. (2) He has alone; here again he corrects the rugged Hebraism, , as he had already corrected , 2Pe 2:12; Jud 1:10. (3) In he corrects another vulgarism; 2 Peter has . (4) The genitive is redundant, and appears to be suggested by the , , of the passage from Enoch. If we regard 2 Peter as the later, we must suppose that he first struck out the quotation from Enoch, though it suited his purpose admirably well, and then dropped the , because without the Enoch passage it was no longer easily intelligible. But this mode of procedure is too artificial to be probable. (5) St. Jude has left without any explanation. In 2 Peter the mock is defined quite easily and naturally by the following words, ; If 2 Peter is here following Jude, it must be allowed that he has displayed great skill in his adaptation. All through this important verse it clearly seems far easier to explain Jude by 2 Peter than to reverse the process.
Among modern commentators there is a growing tendency to adopt this view; the reader may consult the arguments of Spitta, Khl, Zahn. But the question is crucial as to the relation between the two Epistles, and it cannot be denied that a heavy weight of authority lies in the other scale. Jlicher settles the question in a very off-hand way. It appears to speak in favour of the priority of 2 Peter, that Jude, ver. 18, quotes something as an apostolical prophecy which might be derived from 2Pe 3:3, yet at bottom it is given there also as a generally known prophecy (Einleitung, p. 186). But 2 Peter certainly gives the warning as his own, and, if we make him the later, we must suppose that he has here made a very serious alteration in St. Judes text.
19. . These are they that make separations. is found only here in the New Testament. C and some other authorities add , but the insertion is needless. Here again Jude uses the article as in vers. 4, 12, though he omits it when not required, as in ver. 16. He means these are they of whom you have been told that they make separations, or these are they who, as you see, make separations; if we take the former sense we may find here a reference to the of 2Pe 2:1. But in what sense did they separate? They may, as suggested on ver. 12, have kept a distinct Agape. Even this would not imply that they had definitely gone out from the Church. At a later date there were some who celebrated the Agape without the bishop, yet did not regard themselves as schismatics, though Ignatius strongly reproves their conduct as unlawful (Smyrn. viii.). Or they may have kept together at a separate part of the table. There was probably some visible sign of exclusiveness. But probably also the division would largely correspond to distinctions of class. The false teachers of whom Jude is speaking attached themselves to the rich (vers. 11, 16). But the rich would be in the main the educated. Thus we may see here a separation caused partly by wealth, displaying itself in insolent ostentation at the Agape; partly by social position, rebelling against the authority of officials who were not always men of much worldly consideration; partly by an assumption of intellectual superiority, of knowledge. The same dividing influences were working at Corinth, and amongst those to whom St. James wrote, and sprang naturally out of the constitution of the Church, which was strongly democratic on one side, strongly aristocratic on another. In early days, before the Church was wealthy or educated, and before the tradition of her discipline had established itself, a rich Christian, unless he was a very devout man, must have found himself in a very trying position. It was out of this state of things that Gnosticism arose. Gnosticism was the revolt of the well-to-do half-educated bourgeois class.
Here again we may note a resemblance between Jude and the Assumption of Moses, which, after the words already quoted, et os eorum loquetur ingentia, proceeds thus, et super dicent Noli tu me tangere, ne inquines me in loco in quo uersor (vii. 21; the text, however, is largely conjectural, and is followed by two or three lines which are quite illegible; see Hilgenfeld).
, . Sensual, not having the spirit. , opposed to , is a Pauline phrase resting on the peculiar Pauline psychology; see 1Co 2:14, 1Co 15:44. The word is found in Jam 3:15, but could not be used by St. Peter, in whose vocabulary means the religious soul (See note on 1Pe 1:9, and Introduction, p. 40). Nor is used by St. Peter as it is here; to him differs from merely as ghost from soul. He speaks of the Holy Ghost as resting on man (1Pe 4:14), but could hardly have spoken of true Christians as having spirit, because in his view all men are . St. Jude has here introduced into 2 Peter an alien vocabulary and an alien psychology; see notes on vers. 1, 3.
St. Jude means simply what he says, that these men were psychic, not spiritual. He has been taken to mean that the people against whom he is writing called the catholics psychic,. as did the Gnostics and Montanists. Thus his words have been twisted into an argument for the late date of the Epistle. This, however, is quite gratuitous.
20. . respresents ; see Mat 3:9, Mat 3:16:8; Blass, p. 35. For the superlative, , see 2Pe 1:4. Here, as there, it is intensive (most holy, not holiest); the true superlative being exceedingly rare in the New Testament; see Blass, p. 33. is again fides cui creditur, as in ver. 3. We may translate building yourselves up by means of your most holy faith, or upon your most holy faith; though, in this latter sense, is followed by with accusative in 1Co 3:12, and by with dative in Eph 2:20.
is best taken with : the believer prays in the Holy Spirit, as the prophet speaks in the Holy Spirit, 1Co 12:3. It is possible to translate, with Luther, build yourselves up by (or on) faith, in the Holy Spirit, through prayer.
21. . God keeps them, ver. 1, yet they may be said to keep themselves; cf. 1Ti 5:22; Jam 1:27. The love of God, coupled as it is here with the mercy of Christ, almost certainly means the love of God for man; they are to keep themselves safe within the covenant by obedience. Some commentators take the words to mean love for God, as in 2Th 3:5. See note on ver. 1.
. Mercy is ascribed generally to God, as in 1Pe 1:3; in the addresses of 1 and 2 Timothy and of 2 John, to God and Christ; here to Christ alone. Here again there is a possible reference to Enoch 27. 3, 4, in the last days the righteous who have found mercy will bless the Lord of glory, the Eternal King. They will bless Him for the mercy in accordance with which He has assigned them their lot. is by many commentators coupled with . In this case, keep yourselves unto eternal life may be thought to correspond to kept unto Jesus Christ, who is Life Eternal, in ver. 1. Others find the connexion in , but it is difficult to find a satisfactory explanation for either with the participle or with the substantive. With the former, it must be taken to mean waiting until or waiting with your eyes fixed upon, with the latter, mercy that leads to; and none of these renderings is easy.
22, 23. The text of this passage is extremely uncertain. Some of the authorities give only two clauses, some have three, and there are variations in details. (1) Those which give two clauses are-(a) Clement of Alexandria, who twice quotes the verses, giving a different text each time, Strom. vi. 8. 65, , Adumb. in Ep. Judae, Quosdam autem saluate de igne rapientes, quibusdam uero miseremini in timore ( , ). (b) C, , ). (b) C, , . (c) K L O, , : Peshito, et hos quidem miseremini resipiscentes (), hos autem seruate de igne rapientes in timore. (d) Jerome, Eze_18, et alios quidem de igne rapite, aliorum uero qui iudicantur miseremini ( , ). (e) The Bodleian Syriac, et quosdam de illis quidem ex igne rapite, cum autem resipuerint miseremini super eis in timore ( , ). Those which make three clauses are-(a) A, , , : so the Vulgate, Cassiodorus, and Theophylact. (b) , , , . Between the two classes stands B, . This text of B cannot be correct. If we translate those, whom you pity when they dispute, save and snatch from the fire, but some pity in fear, we must give one sense and another, which must be wrong. It is clear that the scribe of B has either omitted before , in which case he agrees with , or wrongly inserted . The confusion is clearly very ancient.
Most of the textual critics and commentators, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Brckner, Wiesinger, Schott, Keil, Alford, Spitta, adopt the text of A. Translate, Some confute when they dispute, some save snatching them from fire, on some have mercy in fear.
In this case we have used in that sense which is borne by the verb in ver. 9. This is the proper sense of the verb, and it is hardly likely that Jude used it in any other. But is it possible that there were originally three clauses? in other words, can Jude be recommending three distinct courses of action towards three distinct classes of people? It is extremely difficult to distinguish them. Who are the some who dispute, who are neither to be saved nor pitied? Surely but two classes of opponents are in view. All would dispute, some would recant their error, some would not. The authority for three clauses is limited to A , the Vulgate, Armenian, and Aethiopic.
Some follow the text of , reading () for . Thus the R. V. renders, On some have mercy who are in doubt; and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear. This reading is supported by one MS. only, and compels us to give a meaning which it bears in Matthew, Mark, Acts, Romans, James, but not in Jude. Again, the repetition of is not in Judes manner, and is objectionable in point of sense. Lastly, the difficulty about the three clauses still remains unbroken.
The Textus Receptus and A.V. follow K L P, translating, with Luther, Of some have compassion making a difference; and others save with fear. But cannot possibly have this meaning. We must certainly correct the nominative, and read .
Weiss adopts the text of B, upon which Westcott and Hort remark with justice that it involves the incongruity that the first must be taken as a relative, and the first as indicative. Some primitive error evidently affects the passage. Perhaps the first , which is not represented in Syr-Bod Clem Hier is intrusive, and was inserted mechanically from the second clause.
The knot of the whole difficulty is to be found in B, the text of which is either conflate or erroneous. The most probable solution is that the scribe of B, or of Bs archetype, meant to give a two-clause text, that by accident he wrote down the second clause first and then corrected himself, but did not delete , and fell into another slip by omitting the participle in the second clause. Out of the confused text thus produced arose the readings of A .
We may thus believe that there were originally but two clauses, but the order of these two is doubtful. We are left to choose between () , , with K L P (corrected) C and the Peshito, and , , which would fairly represent Clement, the Bodleian Syriae, and Jerome. If the of C is the right reading, the former seems preferable, for confutation would naturally come first; otherwise, the latter, for pity would naturally come last. As is upon the whole the better attested, we may take our stand upon the latter.
Translate then finally, Some save, plucking them from fire; some, who dispute, pity in fear. is probably suggested by Amo 4:11, , : or by Zec 3:2, , ; The former passage might well be recalled to St. Judes mind by ver. 7, the latter by ver. 9. , in fear of contamination. Pity them, yet fear, lest the same doom overtake yourselves. The faith once for all delivered to the saints, ver. 3, most holy, ver. 20, is the one way of salvation; those who reject it are rooted out, ver. 12, and doomed to the fire. Cf. Mar 16:16, ( ) . We might possibly find here an argument in favour of the concluding verses of St. Marks Gospel, which were rejected by ancient critics merely because the words were thought to contradict those of St. Matthew, , . See Eusebius, Quaest. ad Marinum, and Victor, quoted by Tischendorf, eighth edition, p. 405.
. Hating even the tunic spotted by the flesh. St. Jude may be thinking of the garment that is infected with leprosy, Lev 13:47, though the word there used is . The was worn next to the skin, and therefore peculiarly liable to contamination. All contact with these moral lepers was to be avoided. Dr. Chase, however, finds here an allusion to the filthy garments, , of Joshua the high priest in Zec 3:3; and this explanation would be possible, if we could be sure that the figure of the brand plucked from the burning is borrowed from this chapter. It may be questioned whether St. Jude contemplates only sorrowful avoidance of the company of these men, or actual excommunication (1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20), but his language is very strong.
24. . Now to him that is able to guard you without stumbling, and to make you stand before the presence of His glory without blemish in exceeding joy. The dative depends upon the attribution implied in , …, in ver. 25; but as the attribution refers at once to past, present, and future, it is not possible to supply any definite verb. The doxology in Rom 16:25 begins with the same words, : cf. also Eph 3:20. , surefooted, is used of a horse which does not stumble, Xen. Eq. i. 6, and of a good man who does not make moral stumbles, Epictetus, Frag. 62; M. Antoninus, v. 9. The word is probably suggested here by , 2Pe 1:10. , to make you stand, is probably more than to present, though we may compare , Col 1:22, or Act 6:6, . But we seem to have here the notion of standing in the judgment, cf. Eph 6:13. For and , see 1Pe 4:13.
25. K L P and the Textus Receptus insert before , probably from Rom 16:27; the same MSS. make the same addition in 1Ti 1:17. K P and Oecumenius omit : the clause, though so familiar in the late doxologies, is found only here, Rom 16:27, and (in substance though not exactly in form) 1Pe 4:11, and may possibly have been inserted with from Romans. On the other hand, Jude may be quoting Romans, or both St. Paul and St. Jude may be using a current form. K P again omit . These words remind us of the later ut erat in principio, and are not found in any other apostolic doxology. , three cursives, and the Coptic omit . L, four cursives, and some Latin MSS. have . Two cursives and Cassiodorus omit . The text has clearly been affected by liturgical influence.
. is used of God eight times in the New Testament, Luk 1:47; 1Ti 1:1, 1Ti 1:2:3, 1Ti 1:4:10; Tit 1:3, Tit 1:2:10, Tit 1:4, and here. Of these instances six are in the Pastoral Epistles. The word is used of Christ in fifteen places, of which five are in 2 Peter, five in Luke, John and Acts, one in Philippians, four in the Pastoral Epistles. Both uses are found in the ancient Hebrew documents used by St. Luke (1:47, 2:11). For see Joh 5:44, , , where, in spite of the antithesis to , the words appear to mean the only God; Rom 16:27, , to the only wise God; here the first attribute qualifies the second, to God who alone is wise; 1Ti 1:17, , the only God, who alone is God. In the present passage it is open to question whether Jude means to the only God, or to God alone, but the commentators seem to be unanimous in preferring the former rendering. The only God is, as Spitta points out, an expression directed against the polytheism of the Gentiles. A close parallel in sense is to be found 1Ti 6:15, 1Ti 6:16. We must take such passages in connexion with others such as Joh 1:1; Rom 9:5; 2Pe 1:1; Jud 1:4, Jud 1:21, or the doxologies addressed to Christ, or the uses of or of .
Khl, Schott, von Soden, Spitta connect with , God who is our Saviour through Jesus Christ, but this construction is unexampled and barely possible; we should have expected . The use of in the doxologies is strongly in favour of translating, Glory to God through Jesus Christ.
is ascribed to God or Christ in all the doxologies except 1Ti 6:16: (a late word which occurs also in Heb 1:3, Heb 8:1, and several times in Enoch, 5:4, 9, 12:3, 14:16; see Dr. Chases article on Jude in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible) only here; for see 1Ti 6:16; 1Pe 4:11, 1Pe 4:5:11; Rev 1:6, Rev 5:13. Compare the doxologies of Clement of Rome and of the Martyrium Polycarpi given in the Introduction. , which generally signifies subordinate and delegated authority, is used of the power of God, Luk 12:5; Act 1:7. . Before all eternity glory was to God through Jesus Christ, and now is, and to all the eternities will be. Words could hardly express more clearly Judes belief in the pre-existence and eternity of Christ.
. See note on 1Pe 4:11.
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
Reciprocal: Gen 28:15 – for I Exo 31:13 – that ye may Exo 39:15 – chains at the ends 1Sa 2:9 – his saints Job 29:2 – God Psa 7:9 – but Psa 12:7 – thou shalt Psa 31:23 – for the Psa 36:1 – servant Psa 37:28 – forsaketh Psa 138:8 – forsake Eze 20:12 – I am Mic 5:4 – shall abide Mat 10:3 – Lebbaeus Mar 3:18 – Thaddaeus Mar 6:3 – Juda Luk 6:16 – Judas the Joh 6:39 – I should Joh 10:28 – they Joh 12:26 – serve Joh 14:22 – Judas Joh 15:15 – I call Joh 17:11 – keep Act 1:13 – Judas Act 20:32 – which are Act 26:18 – sanctified Rom 1:1 – a servant Rom 1:7 – To all Rom 16:18 – serve 1Co 1:2 – to them 1Co 7:22 – is Christ’s Gal 1:19 – James Eph 5:26 – he Phi 1:1 – the servants Phi 4:7 – through Col 3:24 – for 1Th 1:1 – in God 1Th 5:23 – sanctify 2Ti 4:18 – and will Heb 3:1 – the heavenly Heb 10:14 – them Jam 1:1 – James 1Pe 1:5 – kept 2Pe 1:17 – God 1Jo 2:19 – for
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jud 1:1. The writer of this epistle calls himself brother of James, no doubt because of the prominence of James in the Jerusalem church, the man who wrote the epistle of that name. Neither of these men was one of the twelve apostles as is shown in remarks at Jas 1:1. This epistle is addressed to them that are sanctified which means Christians. (See the comments at 1Pe 1:1.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jud 1:1. Judas. This name is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and is given in the shorter form, Jude, only here in the Authorised Version, perhaps to distinguish the writer from Iscariot; but the following clause is sufficiently distinctive; and it should be noted that the name is uniform in the Greek.
and brother of James. The Greek and expresses a Greek affirmativeness not quite equal to but the brother, though approaching it. If he were, as suggested in the Introduction, the brother of our Lord as well as of James, neither of whom speaks of his relation to Christ, the omission is probably owing to the fact that the human relation was temporary and entirely subordinate to the higher relation of spiritual fellowship (Mat 12:49). As brother, moreover, he did not at first believe, and so the relation itself was at once humbling and honourable.
To them that are called. Not invited merely, but having accepted the invitation, and having therefore the calling of sons. This is the uniform meaning in Scripture; not having the name, but the character (comp. a mans calling).
beloved in God the Father (the true reading). Our affection for Christians springs from their relation to Christ and their likeness to Him, as our love for Gods children rests on the same grounds. This is the brotherly love of the Gospel as distinguished from the love of good-will. If sanctified is adopted as the reading, then it may be noted as an unusual expression, Christians being said to be sanctified (feed from the guilt of sin, and made fit for Gods service) in Christ. The meaning of both expressions is, that in communion with Christ through faith they have been freed from the guilt of sin, and that their faith, working as it was by love, is the beginning of personal holiness (1Co 1:2).
kept. The nearly uniform rendering of this verb is kept; and the keeping, it is important to notice, is the fulfilment of the intercessory prayer of our Lord (John 17). The safety of all who believe is the Fathers answer to the Son. God keeps us as we keep His word (Rev 3:3, Greek). Nor is the writers play upon this expression throughcut his epistle without its meaning. God keeps us for Jesus Christ; we keep ourselves in the love of God (Jud 1:21). Evil angels are kept for judgment, because they kept not their first estate (Jud 1:6). And a like play upon the word is found in 2 Peter.
for Jesus Christ is the meaning, not in; for He created them, and redeemed them, and renewed them; they are therefore His own possession (His peculiar people), and as His, are kept for and finally presented to Him (cp. Joh 17:6; Joh 17:12).
The order of the words admits of another, though a less likely interpretation:to those in God the Father, beloved, and kept for Jesus Christ, being called; but the parallelism of the thought is better preserved by the rendering given above.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here we have observable, the person saluting, the persons saluted, and the salutation itself.
Observe, 1. The person saluting described three ways.
1. By his name, Jude, called Thaddeus and Lebbens, to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. Behold, an holy apostle, and a perfidious traitor, bearing the same name; Judas an apostle, and Judas an apostate: it is not an holy name, but an holy nature, that commends us unto God.
2. By his office, a servant of Jesus Christ; he might have styled himself a near kinsman of Jesus Christ, or a brother of the Lord; but he mentions not his natural, but his spiritual relation to Christ: alliance in faith, or a spiritual relation to Christ, is much dearer and nearer than alliance in flesh: there is a peculiar honour and excellency in the title of Christ’s servant, above that of Christ’s kinsman.
3. By his kindred and alliance, brother of James; this is added to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot: it is the duty of the servants, but especially the ministers, of Christ, to prevent all scandalous exceptions against their persons, and to be of untainted reputations: Jude, the servant of Christ, and brother of James.
Observe, 2. The persons saluted: these also are three ways described.
1. They are sanctified by God the father; The apostle judges of them by their profession, and by their obligation; they had, by assuming the Christian name, obliged themselves to be saints or holy persons; and by their profession did own and declare themselves so to be; and no doubt many of them were inwardly sanctified, as well as outwardly holy.
2. They are preserved in Christ Jesus; that is, in the faith of Christ Jesus, when many for fear of persecution have apostatized from it: he that will approve himself a true Christian, just show himself a steadfast Christian; instability is an argument of insincerity.
Again, preserved in Christ Jesus, that is, preserved in a state of grace and holiness, by Christ Jesus, by the merit of his death and passion, by the prevalency of his intercession, and by the Holy Spirit’s efficacy and operation.
3. They are called, all of them externally, by the ministry of the word; internally, many of them, by the effectual operation of the Spirit, renewing the nature, and reforming the life; these are the persons saluted, them that are sanctified by God the Father, preserved in Christ Jesus, and called.
Observe, 3. The salutation itself, Mercy, peace, and love multiplied unto you; mercy from God, the Father of mercies; peace from Jesus Christ, who is our peace; and love from the Holy Ghost, by whom it is shed abroad in our hearts: and his praying that these graces may not be barely given and granted, but be multiplied and increased, intimates to us our duty, which is, not barely to seek grace at the hands of God, but the multiplication and augumentation of it; to labour after grace in growth, as well as grace in truth. Mercy, peace, and love, be multiplied; thankful we may and ought to be for the least measures of good received, but not satisfied with the greatest measures, short of our heavenly perfection; he was never truly good that does not desire daily to grow better.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Assurance for the Christian
He calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ.” The word rendered “servant” literally means “slave,” not as one forced to work, but one who willingly chooses to serve another. He is writing to the “called,” which includes all the followers of Christ ( 1Th 2:12 ; 2Th 2:13-15 ). The called are said to be “sanctified by God the Father.” That is, Christians were set apart by the gift of God’s own Son on the cross of Calvary ( Joh 3:16-17 ; Rom 5:8 ; Rom 8:37-39 ). They are also said to be “preserved” in Jesus Christ ( Jud 1:1 ). In order to be so preserved, Jude urged them to keep themselves in the love of God (verse 21). Jude’s desire for them was that God’s love would be multiplied to them along with His mercy and peace. Woods said that mercy, peace and love are the three blessings needed most by readers of Jude from his day to the present ( Jud 1:2 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Jdg 1:1-2. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ The highest glory which any, either man or angel, can aspire to. The word servant, under the old covenant, was adapted to the spirit of fear and bondage, which cleaved to that dispensation. But when the time appointed of the Father was come for the sending of his Son, to redeem them that were under the law, the word servant (used by the apostles concerning themselves and all the children of God) signified one that, having the Spirit of adoption, was made free by the Son of God. His being a servant is the fruit and perfection of his being a Son. And whenever the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in the New Jerusalem, then it will be indeed that his servants shall serve him, Rev 22:3. And brother of James So well known by his distinguished services in the cause of Christ and of his gospel. St. James was the more eminent, namely, James the Less, usually styled the brother of the Lord; and Jude, being his brother, might also have been called the brother of Christ, rather than the brother of James. But he avoided that designation in the inscription of a letter, which he wrote in the character of an apostle, to show, that whatever respect as a man he might deserve on account of his relation to Christ, he derived no authority from it as an apostle, nor indeed claimed any. To them that are sanctified by God the Father Devoted to his service, set apart for him and made holy, through the influence of his grace; and preserved in Jesus Christ In the faith and profession of Christ, and union with him, and by his power. In other words, brought into the fellowship of his religion, and guarded by his grace in the midst of a thousand snares, which might have tempted them to have made shipwreck of their faith. And called By the preaching of the word, by the dispensations of divine providence, and by the drawings of divine grace; called to receive the whole gospel blessing in time and in eternity. These things are premised, lest any of them should be discouraged by the terrible things which are afterward mentioned. Mercy and peace, &c. A holy and truly apostolical blessing, says Estius; observing, that from this, and the benedictions in the two epistles of Peter, we learn that the benedictions in Pauls epistles are to be completed by adding the word multiplied.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. Jude, the slave of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to the beloved in God the Father, and to the called, having been kept for Jesus Christ. Jude, like all the other apostles, subscribes himself, Gods love slave. Sinners are the devils slaves. Unsanctified Christians occupy the attitude of hired servants in the kingdom of God, i.e., salaried preachers, et cetera, while the sanctified are Gods love slaves, perfectly free from every care and disencumbered of all solicitude for time and eternity, free as angels to do the sweet will of God, which the Holy Spirit constantly reveals.
Heb 10:10. Though they are Gods love slaves, serving Him with all the heart, soul, mind and body, they enjoy the most perfect spiritual liberty, i.e., the very freedom of God Himself, which is perfect liberty to do everything good and nothing bad. We see from this verse having been kept for Jesus Christ, that Jude, like all the other apostles, preached the personal return of Jesus to this world, and labored to get the people sanctified wholly, robed and ready to meet their coming Lord with a shout.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Jud 1:1-4. The author had intended to write them a pastoral letter, but circumstances have made it necessary for him to write in a different strain and to exhort them to contend earnestly for the faith. These circumstances were the presence in their midst of false brethrenwhose doom was appointed long agomen denying Jesus Christ, their Master and Lord, by their vicious lives.
Jud 1:3. the faith . . . unto the saints: this reference to the faith as a fixed and final deposit is said to prove the late date of the epistle: but the same conception of the faith is found in the Pastoral Epistles; cf. also Gal 1:23, Rom 10:8, Eph 4:5.the saints, i.e. Christians; the phrase does not suggest that the writer regards those to whom the faith was delivered as belonging to an earlier generation than those to whom he writes.
Jud 1:4. of old set . . . condemnation: render, who were long ago set forth in writing to this doom. There is no reason to suppose that the writing is some early Christian document (possibly 2 P.) and to see here proof of the late date of Jude (or of the priority of 2 P.). The writing is the OT with its denunciation of evil-livers. Jude has not yet said what the doom is; it is described in the next section.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and {a} brother of James, to them that are sanctified {b} by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:
(a) This is to distinguish between him and Judas Iscariot.
(b) By God the Father.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
I. INTRODUCTION 1:1-2
Jude began his epistle by identifying himself and by wishing God’s blessing on his readers to prepare them for what follows.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
"On the very threshold of a book written about apostasy appears a name which brings to mind a traitor who stands forever as the worst apostate the world has ever known." [Note: S. Maxwell Coder, Jude: The Acts of the Apostates, p. 7.]
The writer identified himself in a humble way. He could have mentioned that he was the half-brother of Jesus Christ, but he preferred to describe his relationship with Jesus as spiritual rather than physical (cf. Jas 1:1). "Bond-servant" or "servant" (Gr. doulos) means "slave."
"The author’s designation of himself as ’brother of James’ is unique. No other New Testament writer introduces himself by identifying his family connections." [Note: Hiebert, Second Peter . . ., p. 192.]
"It is probable that since Jude is not mentioned within the Acts of the Apostles nor in any of the other books of the New Testament, he was not a leader in the early church. Therefore, it was quite natural to identify himself with one who was a leader in the church-his brother James." [Note: Paul A. Cedar, James , 1, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 244.]
Jude’s threefold description of his readers is the first of many triads that distinguish the style of this letter. They present an impression of completeness and well-rounded thought. The Holy Spirit called Christians in the past (cf. Jud 1:3), God the Father loves them in the present (cf. Jud 1:21), and the Son will keep them secure for the future (cf. Jud 1:14; Jud 1:21).
"The knowledge of God’s calling, loving, and keeping brings believers assurance and peace during times of apostasy.
"Each of these points in Jude’s address seem to be alluded to later in the epistle: the calling may be hinted at in the words ’the salvation we share’ (Jud 1:3), the love of God is mentioned in Jud 1:21, and the keeping power of Jesus may be implied in the words, ’as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life’ (Jud 1:21; cf. Jud 1:24)." [Note: Pentecost, p. 919.]
"Kept" is a key word in this epistle occurring five times (Jud 1:1; Jud 1:6 [twice], 13, 21).
"Spiritually we are simply that which we have received, and Jude does not lose sight of this for a moment, even when he is insisting upon the importance of the human co-operation by which the work of grace is made complete." [Note: R. Duane Thompson, "Jude," in The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, 6:389.]