Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jude 1:4

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jude 1:4” utilice nuestra app.

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.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares ] More literally, For there crept in unawares certain men There is a touch of contempt in the way in which, as in Gal 2:4, 2Pe 2:1, the false teachers are referred to without being named. Here also, as there, stress is laid on their making their way into the Church insidiously, and, as it were, under false pretences. The words that follow have often been urged as giving a sanction to the Calvinistic theory of a Divine decree predestining men to condemnation, but it is against this view that the word “of old” is never used in the New Testament of the Divine Counsels, which are in their very nature eternal, and are commonly indicated by such words as “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4), “from the beginning of the world” (Act 15:18), the “eternal purpose” (Eph 3:11) and the like. The Greek word for “of old” may, on the contrary, be used of even a recent past, as in Mar 15:44, 2Pe 1:9. Nor does the Greek word for “ordained” express the thought of a decree like that of the Calvinistic theory, but rather of a public designation, as in Gal 3:1. St Jude’s words accordingly are adequately rendered by who were long ago before marked out as on their way to this condemnation, and may refer to previous prophetic utterances of the same type as those of 1Ti 4:1-2, or 2Pe 2:1, which had already pointed to such men as the coming danger of the Church.

turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness ] The description agrees with that in 2Pe 2:18-19, in pointing to the party who under the pretence of magnifying the grace of God (Rom 6:1), and asserting their Christian liberty, led base and licentious lives, the party, i.e., condemned alike by St Paul (1Co 6:9-18), by St Peter (2 Peter 2) and by St John (1Jn 3:7-10). See notes on 2 Peter 2.

denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ] The better MSS. omit the word “God,” and as the Greek word for the first “Lord” is that used in 2Pe 2:1 (see note there), we are probably justified in applying it also to Christ. On that view, or indeed in any case, it would be better to express the distinction between the two terms by translating, the only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. The “denial” spoken of is two-fold, both in doctrine, as in 1Jn 2:22-23, or in life, but the context shews that stress is laid chiefly on the latter.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Jud 1:4

For there are certain men crept in unawares.

Secret enemies in the Church

1. The apostle saith there are certain men crept in, which some think to note the uncertainty of their persons, as who should say there are certain wicked and ungodly persons in the Church, but who they be we cannot tell very well. And surely the uncertainty of their persons, which are wicked, will stir up those which are wise, and have care of their salvation to greater diligence, and more circumspectly to observe and mark all men, lest at any time or by any means they be deceived. But howbeit the number be indefinite in that they are certain, yet it may seem that he giveth us to understand that the enemies of the Church were divers, and therefore the saints have greater cause to contend against them.

2. As they are certain, so are they within the bosom of the Church already, therefore both the danger is the greater and the contention must be the sharper. The enemies of the Church are not without the walls, where the better they might be dealt withal, but entered in already, and walk in the midst thereof, the greater peril is like to follow, and the greater courage must be showed in this contending.

3. And as they are already within, so are they crept in craftily, and therein their subtle dealing is noted, whereby the danger is also increased. There is no greater danger than that intended by a subtle enemy, whose person as it is most hardly discerned, so the danger by him is least perceived and rarely avoided, but that peril is the lesser when the enemy is known and the matter suspected. Wherefore the cunning of the wicked must sharpen and whet our care to contend against them. (R. Turnbull.)

The character of the heretics

I. Nameless men. He may have been induced to advert to them merely as certain men.

1. With the view of avoiding those irritating personalities by which religious controversies are so apt to be characterised.

2. With the view of marking the holy disdain with which he regarded them, as if he considered them unworthy of being more particularly mentioned.

3. For the purpose of not adding to the notoriety which they very probably courted.

II. Deceivers. They crept in unawares. This may mean either that the parties in question assumed the office of spiritual teachers without the knowledge or consent of the brethren, or that they contrived by false professions to induce the rulers of the Church to admit them to that office. The latter is probably the real meaning of the words (2Pe 2:1).

III. Reprobates. Of old ordained to this condemnation. (W.McGilvray, D. D.)

Enemies within the Church

The adversaries impugn the faith, therefore the saints must stand for it. The Church hath many adversaries, like motes in the sun. As there is a contrary in all, day and night, cold and heat, sickness and health, life and death, so in religion. The godly, the faithful are as lambs amongst wolves, as lilies amongst thorns, as doves amongst ravens. Many oppugn the faith, therefore we must be ready to defend it, yea, strive for it unto death; as Joab fought for God, so let us speak for God and write for God. But to come to the description of these adversaries, they are here described two ways.

1. They are described by their life, and they are said first to creep into the Church. They have butter in their mouths, but swords in their hearts. A dog that barketh may be prevented before he bite, and the serpent that hisseth before he sting, and the fire that smoketh before it burn; so may a known enemy, but a secret enemy, a creeper, is hard to prevent.

2. They are here described by their impiety. He saith that they were , without God, without faith, without religion; they deny God the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ, so Paul said (Eph 2:12; Php 3:17-18). The world is full of such atheists, they swarm like bees, they abound like lice in Egypt.

3. The wicked are here described by their carnality and liberty; they turn grace into wantonness, for ungodliness hath two branches, iniquity in life and manners and impurity in religion. Of the first he saith, They turn grace into wantonness; of the second it is said that they denied God and Christ Jesus. They are like Aesops snake, that lay still in the frost, but stung him that warmed her in his bosom; so long as God keepeth us sick and lame and poor we are in some order, our ears are full of sermons, our lips full of prayers, our hands full of alms, our hearts full of holy meditations; but if we come to health and wealth and strength we rage like giants, we are like bad ground, which the more sweet dews it receiveth the more weeds it bringeth out. (S. Otes.)

False teachers foretold

I. The insidiousness with which false teachers effect an entrance into the Church. They creep in unawares. Now craft, you will observe, is the assumed Scriptural characteristic of all heresy (Mat 7:15; Eph 4:14; 2Co 11:13). The word which the apostle uses to describe this method of entrance is one which supposes that they had recourse to certain surreptitious and fraudulent means. It literally means the getting into a house under ground, or by means of some clandestine and unsuspected entrance. Let us note some of the byways by which false teachers get an entrance for their erroneous teaching.

1. One way is they keep back the full scope and tendency of their doctrines. Things that are to be really believed are only partially discovered, the rest being wrapped up in skilful ambiguities, only to be elicited when some superior disputant will press their doctrines to their legitimate consequences.

2. Another of the byways by which false teaching creeps into a Church is by a skilful mixing up with it a good deal of sound and wholesome doctrine, which is always paraded with a great show of orthodoxy. The apostle therefore in the text exhorts us to see that we look to a mans teaching as a whole. He may teach truth in regard, of all the attributes of the Divine nature, and yet if he obscure or distort or keep back other truths, if he tamper with the great doctrine of our justification by faith in the atonement, we are to denounce him as a deceiver and an antichrist.

II. The reason why these false teachers are permitted to have a certain measure of success. They have crept in, being before of old ordained to this condemnation.

1. First, you will observe, the apostle meets the supposed objections advanced on the general score of the Divine predestination–on that fixed immutability of purpose which, however contrary things may appear to us, will cause that God shall work all things according to the counsel of His own will. There can be no counsel against the Lord; there can be no unforeseen obstacle to the spread of His gospel. He ordains the chosen vessel to preach, and He ordains the means by which this preaching may for a time be thwarted.

2. To this condemnation. What does the apostle mean by this word? Does he mean that they are ordained to the irrevocable judgments of an angered God? to the future penalties denounced against the disobedient? I think not. A deluded teacher may bring in false doctrine, may even for a time draw after him many unstable souls, and yet he may, through the enlightening and recovering grace of the Spirit, be brought to see the error of his ways, and afterwards become valiant for the truth of God. It is said with regard to these false teachers, that the longer they continue to deal out poisoned food to their people, the more likely it is that they should be given over to a judicial blindness, which must, unless the grace of God should take it away, issue in the final perdition of their souls.

III. The great doctrines which it is the aim of these false teachers to subvert. Men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. And first, as to the expression, the grace of God. In its primary import the word means favour, goodness, benefit, something whereby one is spontaneously moved to do an act of kindness for another. Hence the word is used as a comprehensive designation for all the blessings of the gospel. These doctrines of grace these false teachers were seeking to abuse, to turn to the hateful account of their own licentiousness and sin.

2. Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness; that is, not necessarily into any particular form of deadly sin, but that they turned the grace of God, the free mercy of God vouchsafed to us in Jesus Christ, into a pretext for any and all forms of self-indulgence and self-pleasing which might minister to the gratification of the carnal mind. Examine any system of error, and you will find that more or less it resolves itself into some form of experiment on the Divine mercy, a calculation upon Gods willingness to do that which He has said He never will do–a presumptuous expectation that we may make as wide as we will that gate which God has declared to be narrow–a belief that without a changed heart, without anything that could come up to the Scriptural notion of holiness, it would be possible for a man to see the Lord. And thus it is well said by the apostle afterwards, that this turning the mercy of our God to their own worldly and selfish and unrighteous purposes practically amounted to a denial of the only Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (D. Moore,M. A.)

Nocturnal enemies

Nocturnal birds of prey fly without making the least noise. They can, therefore, pounce unawares on their victims, seizing them before they have any idea of necessity for escape.

Grace abused

There are two things that most men desire, and they are, power and liberty; and when they have attained them I may say they are unto men as they describe waters. They are easily apt to run over in what vessels soever you put them in. The grand exhortation in this Epistle is set down Jud 1:3, Contend earnestly for the faith once given unto the saints. It is not enough to strive once, and to assert the truths, but ye must do it again and again, after one another, as often as the truth of God is opposed. And he gives the reason of this exhortation. First, because it is a depositum that the Lord hath in mercy delivered unto the saints, which the Lord requires them to keep: you are but stewards of it; it is committed unto you that you should transmit it unto posterity. Secondly, it was but once given, and therefore you cannot expect that if you part with it the Lord will again bestow it unto you. It is like the fire upon the altar that was at first kindled from heaven, and was there, by the industry of the priests, to be kept alive, and was never to go out. Thirdly, he doth press this from the danger of it, in regard that the enemies lie in wait, there are certain men crept in unawares, etc. First, false teachers: they do not rush in, for then they would be observed, but they creep in secretly. Secondly, the things that they trade in are the truths of God and the souls of men. Therefore contend earnestly for the faith, for when false teachers come it is the faith that they do mainly aim at. And the apostle comes also to a description of the persons with whom your contention was to be. First, they are described by the act of God upon them, what they are in Gods predetermination. Secondly, by the act of sin within them, and what they are by their own corruptions. All ungodly men, pretend what they will, they have no fear of God in them, nor any respect unto God. They are men that are strangers unto God, and live without Him in the world–that is their general description. They are ungodly men that have no fear of God in their hearts, and that do whatsoever they do without any respect unto God, though they are many times great pretenders. Secondly, they are more particularly described. First, by their desperate opinions–they turn the grace of God into wantonness. Secondly, by their devilish conversations–they deny the Lord God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. It is spoken in respect of their lives and ways (2Ti 1:16). First, what is meant by the grace of God? As given unto us grace is taken two ways in Scripture, either for the gospel, the Word of His grace, as it is called (Act 20:32), and so it is taken (2Co 6:1). Secondly, it is put for the impress of this Word upon the heart, for it is the Word writ in the heart. They are the habits of grace in us; it is into this mould we are cast (Rom 6:17). It must here be meant of the Word of His grace, the doctrine of the gospel. Secondly, what is meant by wantonness? The word signifies a wanton, vain, licentious, and unruly disposition of heart. Thirdly, what is it to turn the grace of God into wantonness? The word signifies to transpose a thing, and put it out of its place; to turn away a thing or a person and put it out of its former condition. And when men make use of the doctrines of the gospel to serve their own lust, and do grow more loose under them, this is to pervert the gospel of grace unto an end for which it was never appointed.

I. There is a wantonness in corrupt teachers; there are both wicked doctrines and wicked practices, for they both go together in the same men. First, this will appear by the descriptions everywhere given of them in the Scripture; they are described and placed in the highest rank of wicked men. Secondly, it must needs be so if we consider from whence doth heresy come. We have the rise of it (Rev 9:1-2). Thirdly, they are in Scripture resembled unto the wickedest men that ever were (2Pe 2:15). Fourthly, no men are so industriously wicked as they are, and they will compass sea and land to make a proselyte, and make him tenfold the child of hell when they have done more than he was before (Rev 9:10; Rev 9:18-19). Fifthly, the people of God have abhorred them as the wickedest men that ever were in the world, and therefore there is no sort of sinners that the Spirit of God hath so set Himself and the Spirit of His saints so much against as these (Tit 3:10). Sixthly, they are such sort of sinners as are most immediately acted by the devil of any men in the world; they have the most immediate influences from hell, and therefore (Rev 16:13-14).

II. Men take special care that the Word of God should be brought in to patronise their lusts. They will be wanton, but they would also wrest the Word of God and have that countenance it. First, carnal reason is lusts counsellor, and the strongholds of sin lie therein. It is a great pleader for sin. Men sought out inventions (Ecc 7:29; 2Co 10:5). There is a great contribution that corrupt reason gives to lust. Secondly, but never so much as when it is from the Word of God, that being the rule of a mans actions. Let lust have something from it to satisfy it and then the man sins securely. Thirdly, the bitterest enemies that ever the Church of God had, have been those that have owned the same Scriptures with themselves, as the Samaritans and the Jews and the Papists unto us, for hereby wickedness comes under the title of a duty (Joh 16:2). Consider but these four things. First, is this the return you make for all the goodness of God towards you? Consider the evil of it. First, hereby you do dishonour God in that which is highest to Him, and which He has most exalted next to His Son (Psa 138:2). Secondly, hereby you do gratify the devil, for that hath been his great design. Thirdly, no men bring on themselves greater destruction than these men do, who turn the grace of God into wantonness by bringing into the Church damnable heresies (2Pe 2:3). Fourthly, this is a dangerous forerunner of destruction to any nation or Church. (W. Strong.)

Perversion of the truth

I. A great crime. Why should men want to change the truth of the living God? Look into the text and you have the answer.

(1) Because the fear of God is not in their soul–ungodly men. When the helm is broken the vessel will drift in every direction. Reverence for God is the first essential of faith in revelation.

(2) Because to human appearance sin appears less hideous when committed in the name of religion–turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.

(3) Because the authority of our only Master and Lord is against the license they would afford the flesh. Take Christ out of the gospel and any use might be made of it; but give Him His place in the sphere of Divine truth, and the force against sin is irresistible.

II. An awful doom.

(1) It is a defiance of Divine authority: God is contradicted. When this is done moral government is at stake.

(2) It is the greatest wrong that can be done to others. If you do not know the way, say so, but to know the way, and direct the man to go in the contrary direction, is to cause him harm.

(3) It is an offence against the love of God, who sent His only Son to make us good, and lead us to virtue. (T. Davies, D. D.)

Before of old ordained to this condemnation.

Man responsible for sin

Having described the wicked which were before of old ordained to condemnation by their life, he cometh now to describe them by their end. Here they fare well; but they walk upon ice, in the end they fall. Wheat and chaff go together till they come to the flail; gold and dross go together till they come to the furnace, but then the gold is the purer and the dross is molten. Gods glory is above the heavens; we may bark at it, as dogs do against the moon, but we cannot pull it down. To speak more fully–Gods will is a reason of all reasons; it is the rule of all equity. The judgments of God are oftentimes secret, hid, but never unjust. God ordains no man to be evil, though He hath ordained the evil unto punishment, for should God ordain men unto sin then should God be the author of sin. He ordains indeed the incitements and occasions of sin to try men withal; He also orders sins committed, and does limit them; and in these regards is said as before to work in them and to will them; in which regards also they are in Scripture attributed unto Him sometimes (2Sa 12:11-12; 2Sa 15:16). A. man rideth upon a lame horse, and stirs him; the rider is the cause of the motion, but the horse himself of the halting motion. So God is the author of every action, but not of the evil of the action. The like is in the striking of a jarring and untuned harp–the fingering is thine, the jarring or discord is in the harp or instrument. The earth giveth fatness and juice to all kind of plants; some of these plant, yield pestilent and noisome fruits. Where is the fault, in the nourishment of the ground or in the nature of the herb, which by the native corruption decocteth the goodness of the ground into venom and poison? The goodness and moisture is from the earth, the venom from the herb; the sounding from the hand, the jarring from the instrument. So the action is from God, the evil in the action from the impure fountain of thy own heart. (S. Otes.)

Divine preordination

1. The object of the Divine decrees are not only mens ways, but mens persons. He doth not only say that their condemnation was preordained, but they also were ordained of old to this condemnation.

2. God hath His books and registers, wherein the persons, behaviours, and eternal estates of all men are recorded (Rev 20:12).

3. In all those things which appertain to the judgment of sinners God doth nothing rashly, but proceedeth by foresight and preordination.

4. No man ever perverted the truths of God but to his own loss. We play with opinions, but do not consider that damnation is the end of them; the way of truth is the way of life, but error tendeth to death.

5. Heresies and errors do not fall out by chance, but according to the certain preordination and foreknowledge of God. There are two reasons for it:–Nothing can come to pass without His will, and nothing can come to pass against His will. Briefly, the concurrence of God in and about the errors of men may be conceived in these things:–

(1) He denieth grace and light which might direct and sanctify.

(2) He leaveth difficulty enough in the Word, that men who will not be satisfied may be hardened (Mar 4:11-12).

(3) God leaveth them to follow the course of their own hearts; He doth not incline and compel their wills, or infuse evil to them (Hos 4:17; 1Ki 22:22; Psa 81:12); He hindereth not their wickedness–yea, permitteth it, that so His wise counsels may take place.

(4) God ordereth it for good, thereby bringing great advantage to His own name (Exo 9:16).

(5) Once more, Gods permission of error conduceth to the just ruin of His enemies (Mat 18:6-7; 1Sa 2:25).

The point may be applied many ways.

(1) Here is comfort to those that regard the affairs of Sion; all the confusion and troubles that are in the Church are ordered by a wise God; He will bring some good issue out of them.

(2) It checketh fear; it is all in the hands of a good God; as God trieth you to see what you will do, so you must wait upon God to see what He will do: He will bring forth His work in due time.

(3) It showeth their wickedness that take occasion to turn atheists from the multitude of errors.

(4) It is a ground of prayer in times of delusion: Lord, this was ordained by Thee in wisdom, let us discern Thy glory in it and by it more and more.

(5) It informeth us what a foolish madness it is to think that God seeth not the sin which we secretly commit: surely He seeth it, for He foresaw it before it was committed; yea, from all eternity. (T. Manton.)

Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.–

The perversion of grace

I. The gospel and grace of God in itself is not pliable to carnal purposes, yieldeth no carnal conclusions. They turn it, saith the apostle; there is no such thing gotten out of the gospel till the art of a deceiver hath passed upon it.

1. It yieldeth no leave to sin, but liberty to serve God; this is the great design of it. Freedom from wrath and hell is a privilege, but freedom from duty and obedience is no privilege. In the gospel there is pardon for failings, but not to encourage us in our failings, but our duties. We were never so much obliged to duty as since the gospel, because now we have more help and more advantages, stronger motives and greater encouragements.

2. There are frequent and constant dissuasives from this perverting our liberty in Christ to the service of any fleshly design (Rom 6:1; Gal 5:13; 1Pe 2:6).

3. Because in the gospel itself there are quite contrary inferences from those which flesh and blood would draw from the gospel. The gospel hath been abused to three ends–to looseness, laziness, licentiousness. Now, you shall see the Word carrieth things in a quite contrary way to what carnal men do. To looseness: men have been the more careless, because grace hath abounded in the discoveries of the gospel; but the apostle disdaineth it, as a most abhorrent conclusion from gospel principles (Rom 6:1). The gospel teacheth quite contrary (Tit 2:11-12); not wantonness, but weanedness, to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts (Rom 6:16; 2Co 7:1). A bee gathereth honey thence from whence a spider sucketh poison. Again, to laziness: men are apt to lie down upon the bed of ease, and say Christ must do all, and so exclude all use of means and the endeavour of the creature. This is a foul abuse; for the Scripture inferreth thence the care and work of the creature, because God doth all (Php 2:12-13). Use

1. It serveth to inform us, in the first place, that carnal men are ill-skilled in consequences; from the very gospel would they draw a liberty to sin, than which from such premises no conclusion can be more strange. Use

2. Again, it serveth for caution; when you meet with such base inferences from evangelical principles, do not blame the gospel or the ministry.

(1) Not the gospel, as if it were not clear enough, or faithful enough, or wary enough. They that have a mind to fall shall not want a stone of stumbling; they that will only be feasted with comforts, no wonder if they contract a spiritual sickness, and undo their souls by a misunderstood and misapplied gospel.

(2) Do not blame the ministry and dispensation of the gospel, because some abuse free grace, others cannot endure to hear it preached; but children must not be kept from their bread because dogs catch at it.

II. Though grace itself be not pliable to such conclusions, yet wicked men are very apt to abuse it to the countenancing of their sins and lusts.

1. Because carnal hearts do assimilate all that they meet with, and turn it into the nourishment of their carnal lusts: as the salt sea turneth the fresh rivers and the sweet showers of heaven into salt waters, so do carnal men pervert the holy principles of the gospel; or as sweet liquors are soon soured in an unclean vessel, so do truths lose their use and efficacy when laid up in a carnal heart, and are quite turned to another purpose.

2. Because they would fain sin securely, with a free dispensation from God, and therefore seek by all means to entitle God to the sin, and the sin to God. They would find a great deal of ease from gripes of conscience if they could make God the author, or at least the countenancer, of their evil practices; and therefore when they can rub their guilt upon the gospel, and pretend a liberty by Christ, the design is accomplished.

3. Because man is obedient naturally no longer than when under impressions of awe and fear; the cords of a man (Hos 11:4) work little with us–like beasts we only put forward when we feel the goad.

4. Because we all naturally desire liberty, carnal liberty, to be left to our own sway and bent, and therefore we catch at anything that tendeth that way. We would be as gods, lords of our own actions, and so are very apt to dream of an exemption from all kind of law but our own lusts. (T. Manton.)

Grace turned into lasciviousness

But how can they turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness? Is grace capable of a conversion into lust or sin? Will what was once grace ever become wantonness? It is the doctrine, not the real substance of grace, that is intended. The doctrine of forgiveness is this grace of God, which may be thus abused. From hence do men, who have only a general notion of it, habitually draw secret encouragements to sin and folly. (J. Owen, D. D.)

The folly of presuming on redeeming grace

Would any man be so simple as to set his house on fire because he has a great river running by his door, from whence he may have water to quench it; or wound himself, because there is an excellent plaster which has cured several? (S. Charnock.)

Divine grace abused

1. To turn the grace of God into wantonness is to take a pretence and occasion to wax wanton, by the grace of God, whose favour the greater it is towards them the more wicked and wanton they be. Such are the presumptuous sinners, which will therefore sin of purpose because God is merciful. These are they which in the apostle say, Let us do evil that good may come thereof: let us sin that God may be merciful: let us commit iniquity that Gods glory may be revealed; yet is their condemnation just. And this grace of God is turned into wantonness of divers and diversely.

(1) When we think ourselves exempted from all duties, homage, and service to men, because we are freed by Jesus Christ.

(2) They also turn the grace of God into wantonness which outwardly profess the gospel, frequent the Word of God, hear the wholesome doctrine of Jesus Christ: but wrest it to maintain their wanton and filthy desires.

(3) They furthermore turn the grace of God into wantonness who profess the gospel, that under colour thereof they may play the wanton more freely and may live thereunder more idly. (R. Turnbull.)

Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.–

Denying God

Now there be many ways to deny God. Some deny His power, as the proud do; some His providence, as the infidels; some His justice, as the impenitent; some His mercy, as the desperate; some His truth, as liars; some His strength, as the fearful do. But especially we deny God in our lives, in our deeds, thus the Cretians denied Him. They professed they knew God, but by works they did deny Him, and were abominable, disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. The profession of God is known by the fruits of it, as life is discerned by the motion of man. On the contrary, if a man would persuade us that there is fire whereas there is no heat, or that there were life in a carcase that never moved, we would not believe him; so believe not him that speaketh of God and liveth not in God. Seeing all things are made for man, it cannot be but man is made for another, and that is God only: but the wicked shall find God and feel God when it is too late, though here they do deny Him. God here is called the only God to note the Trinity in Unity; there is one God, one essence of the three persons. The heathen thought it impossible for one God to govern this great world, therefore they made one god for heaven, as Jupiter; another for hell, as Pluto; one for bread, as Ceres; another for wine, as Bacchus; one for the sea, as Neptune; another for the wind, as Aeolus; one for learning, as Minerva; another for merchandise, as Mercury. Again, they deny Christ, of which sort there be many. The Jews deny that He is come; the pagans deny that ever He will come; the Turks confess that He is come, but yet as a man, not as a God, inferior to their Mahomet. But to speak orderly, men deny Christ many ways. Some deny His Divinity, as the Arians; some His humanity, as the Ubiquitaries; some His natures, by rending them asunder, as the Nestorians, who make two Christs–one the Son of God, another the son of Mary; some deny them by confounding them, as Eutyches, which said that His humanity was swallowed up of His Divinity; some deny Him by concealing Him in time of persecution, as the Nicodemites do. But chiefly we deny the Lord Jesus two ways: first, by denying the sufficiency of His death, as the Galatians did and as the Jews did. Secondly, we deny the Lord Jesus by denying the efficacy or virtue of His death, not dying unto sin. For as the sun doth not warm all whom it lighteneth, as the people under the North Pole, who have the sun six months together, and yet freeze, so the Spirit of God doth not cause all to feel the virtue of His death, whom He illuminateth with the knowledge of His death. The profession of Christ standeth not in words, but in deeds; not in tongue, but in heart; not in opinion, but in life. The apostle nameth a true knowledge, for many know not God truly. (S. Otes.)

Denying Christ the Lord

I. Jesus Christ is Master and Lord (Rev 15:3). Head over all things to the Church (Eph 1:22). In the world the attribute manifested is power; in the Church, grace. Lord, let me feel the efficacy of Thy grace rather than the power of Thine anger!

II. Christ is Lord and Jesus; He came to rule and He came to save.

III. Again, from the words observe, the Son of God was Christ, that He might be Lord and Jesus; anointed of the Father that He might accomplish our salvation. This anointing signifieth two things. First, it noteth the nature of His offices. Under the Old Testament three sort of persons were anointed–kings, priests, and prophets, and all these relations doth Christ sustain to the Church. Secondly, it noteth the authority upon which His office is founded; He was anointed thereto by God the Father, who in the work of redemption is represented as the offended party and supreme judge; and so it is a great comfort to us that Christ is a mediator of Gods choosing.

IV. Once more, observe, that Jesus Christ, the Master of the world and Lord of the Church, is true God. For it is said here, denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. That Christ is God appeareth by express Scripture, where He is called the true God (1Jn 5:20); the great God (Tit 2:13), to show that He is not a God inferior to the Father, but equal in power and glory, and that not by courtesy and grant, but by nature. So He is called the mighty God, the everlasting Father (Isa 9:6), and God over all (Rom 9:5). Again, God He must needs be, if you consider the work He ought to do. The work of the Mediator could be despatched by no inferior agent. Uses. Well, then, we learn hence–

1. That Christ is a proper object for faith.

2. Since He was God by nature, let us observe the love of Christ in becoming man.

3. It is an invitation to press us to come to Christ, and by Christ to God.

V. i come now to the word implying their guilt, denying. Observe, that it is a horrible impiety to deny the Lord Jesus; when He would make these seducers odious, He giveth them this character. Now Christ is many ways denied. I shall refer them to two heads–in opinion and practice.

1. In opinion: so Christ is denied when men deny His natures or offices.

2. Christ is denied in practice; and so–

(1) By apostasy and total revolt from Him (Mat 10:33).

(2) By not professing Christ in evil times, for not to profess is to deny (Mat 10:32-33; Mar 8:38).

(3) Men deny Christ when they profess Him and walk unworthily and dishonourably to their profession. Actions are the best image of mens thoughts. Now their actions give their profession the lie (Tit 1:16). (T. Manton.)

Denying Christ

(1) As in profession God the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ is denied, so is God and Christ denied in doctrine.

(2) God the only Lord and Jesus Christ our Saviour is denied of me in conversation, when in words we give our names to Christs religion, yet in our deeds will not be obedient.

(3) God and our Lord Jesus Christ is denied of men by vainly trusting in worldly things, and not reposing all confidence in God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(4) God and our Saviour Jesus Christ is denied by revolting, backsliding, and falling away from the religion of God and the profession of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(5) Finally, when we do not deny openly the doctrine of the gospel and the Word of God, yet notwithstanding we will not obey the admonitions of the ministers of Jesus Christ, nor fear the threatenings and punishment sounded out against our sins, we deny the Lord Jesus. (R. Turnbull.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 4. For there are certain men crept in unawares] . They had got into the Church under specious pretences; and, when in, began to sow their bad seed.

Before of old ordained] Such as were long ago proscribed, and condemned in the most public manner; this is the import of the word in this place, and there are many examples of this use of it in the Greek writers. See Kypke.

To this condemnation] To a similar punishment to that immediately about to be mentioned.

In the sacred writings all such persons, false doctrines, and impure practices, have been most openly proscribed and condemned; and the apostle immediately produces several examples, viz., the disobedient Israelites, the unfaithful angels, and the impure inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha. This is most obviously the apostle’s meaning, and it is as ridiculous as it is absurd to look into such words for a decree of eternal reprobation, c., such a doctrine being as far from the apostle’s mind as from that of Him in whose name he wrote.

Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness] Making the grace and mercy of God a covering for crimes intimating that men might sin safely who believe the Gospel, because in that Gospel grace abounds. But perhaps the goodness of God is here meant, for I cannot see how they could believe the Gospel in any way who denied the Lord Jesus Christ; unless, which is likely, their denial refers to this, that while they acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah, they denied him to be the only Lord, Sovereign, and Ruler of the Church and of the world. There are many in the present day who hold the same opinion.

The only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.] . These words may be translated, Denying the only sovereign God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. But GOD, is omitted by ABC, sixteen others, with Erpen’s Arabic, the Coptic, AEthiopic, Armenian, and Vulgate, and by many of the fathers. It is very likely that it was originally inserted as a gloss, to ascertain to whom the title of , the only Sovereign, belonged; and thus make two persons where only one seems to be intended. The passage I believe belongs solely to Jesus Christ, and may be read thus: Denying the only sovereign Ruler, even our Lord Jesus Christ. The text is differently arranged in the Complutensian Polyglot, which contains the first edition of the Greek Testament: , Denying the only God and Sovereign, our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a very remarkable position of the words, and doubtless existed in some of the MSS. from which these editors copied. The Simonians, Nicolaitans, and Gnostics, denied God to be the creator of the world; and Simon is said to have proclaimed himself as FATHER to the Samaritans, as SON to the Jews, and as the HOLY GHOST to all other nations. All such most obviously denied both Father, Son, and Spirit.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Who were before of old ordained; Greek, forewritten, i.e. of whom it was formerly written, or foretold, viz. by Christ and his apostles; or rather, it is to be understood according to our translation, before ordained, viz. in the eternal counsel of God; Gods decree being compared to a book, in which things to be done are written down. This the apostle adds to prevent any offence that might be taken at the wickedness of these seducers; and therefore lets these saints know, that though such men crept in unawares to them, yet it was not without the providence of God so ordering it.

To this condemnation; or, judgment; and it may be understood, either of a reprobate sense, to which they who thus perverted the gospel were given up by God, according to his preordination; or of that damnation he decreed should follow upon their wickedness, in making shipwreck of the faith themselves, and subverting others. This seems best to agree with 2Pe 2:3.

Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness; abusing the doctrine of the grace of God, and benefits of Christ revealed in the gospel, especially the doctrine of Christian liberty, to the encouraging themselves and others in the vilest lusts, 2Pe 2:1.

And denying the only Lord God: either this may be understood of the Father distinctly from Christ, expressed in the following clause, and only is put in not to exclude either of the other Persons of the Trinity from being God, but to exclude idols and false gods: or it may be understood of Christ, as well as the words following; not only because there is but one article in the Greek relating to the whole sentence, but because it seems best to agree with the parallel place, 2Pe 2:1, which is most generally understood of Christ; and because the heresies of those times, which Jude cautions these saints against, struck especially at the Godhead of Christ, which he therefore the more expressly asserts.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

certainmen implying disparagement.

creptin unawares stealthily and unlawfully. See on 2Pe2:1,privilyshall bring in damnable heresies.

before… ordained Greek,forewritten, namely, in Peters prophecy Jud1:17,Jud1:18;and in Pauls before that, 1Ti4:1;2Ti3:1;and by implication in the judgments which overtook the apostateangels. The disobedient Israelites, Sodom and Gomorrah, Balaam andCore, and which are writtenfor an example (Jud1:7,and Jud1:5,Jud1:6,Jud1:11).Gods eternal character as the Punisher of sin, as set forth inScripture of old, is the ground on which such apostatecharacters are ordained to condemnation. Scripture is the reflectionof Gods book of life in which believers are written among theliving. Forewritten is applied also in Rom15:4to the things written in Scripture. Scripture itself reflects Godscharacter from everlasting, which is the ground of His decrees fromeverlasting. Bengel explains it as an abbreviated phrase for, Theywere ofold foretoldby Enoch (Jud1:14,who did not writehis prophecies), and afterwards marked out by the writtenword.

tothis condemnation Jude graphically puts their judgment as it were present beforethe eyes, THIS. Enochs prophecy comprises the ungodlymen of the last days before Christs coming to judgment, as wellas their forerunners, the ungodly men before the flood, thetype of the last judgment (Mat24:37-39;2Pe3:3-7).The disposition and the doom of both correspond.

thegrace of our God A phrase for the Gospel especially sweet to believers whoappropriate God in Christ as ourGod, and so rendering the more odious the vile perversity of thosewho turn the Gospel state of grace and liberty into a ground oflicentiousness, as if their exemption from the law gave them alicense to sin.

denyingthe only Lord The oldest manuscripts, versions, and Fathers omit God,which follows in EnglishVersion.Translate as the Greek,the only Master; here used of JesusChrist,who is at once Masterand Lord (a different Greekword). See on 2Pe2:1.By virtue of Christs perfect oneness with the Father, He, as wellas the Father, is termed the ONLY God and MASTER. Greek,Master, implies Gods absoluteownershipto dispose of His creatures as He likes.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For there are certain men crept in unawares,…. These words contain a reason why the doctrine of faith should be contended for, because of false teachers, who are described as being then upon the spot; the Apostles Peter and Paul had foretold that they would come, but Jude here speaks of them as in being; wherefore present rigour and vigilance were necessary to be used: their names are not mentioned, nor their number, only that there were “certain”, or “some men”; which is done to stir up the saints to self-examination, whether they were in the faith; to diligence, in finding out these men; to vigour, in opposing them; and to care, to nip error and heresy in the bud: and they are said to have “crept in unawares”: either into private houses, as was the custom of those men; or into the churches, and become members of them being the tares the enemy sows among the wheat; or into the ministry, assuming that office to themselves, without being called and sent of God; and so into the public assemblies of the saints, spreading their poisonous doctrines among them; and also into their affections, until discovered; and so the Ethiopic version reads here, “because ungodly men have entered into your hearts”; and all this was at an unawares, privily, secretly, without any thought about them, or suspicion of them:

who were before of old ordained to this condemnation; or judgment; meaning either judicial blindness of heart, they were given up to, in embracing and spreading errors and heresies; so that these are not casual things, but fall under the ordination and decree of God, which does not make God the author of them, nor excuse the men that hold them; and they are ordained and ordered for many valuable ends; on the part of God, to show his power and wisdom; and on the part of truth, that it might be tried and appear the brighter, and to manifest his people and their graces: or else punishment is designed, even everlasting condemnation, to which some are preordained of God; for this act of preordination respects persons, and not mere actions and events; and is not a naked prescience, but a real decree, and which is sure, certain, and irrevocable; is God’s act, and springs from his sovereignty, is agreeably to his justice and holiness; nor is it contrary to his goodness, and is for his glory: the date of this act is “of old”; or as the Syriac version renders it, , “from the beginning”; that is, from eternity; see 2Th 2:13; for reprobation is of the same date with election; if the one is from eternity, the other must be so too, since there cannot be one without the other: if some were chosen before the foundation of the world, others must be left or passed by as early; and if some were appointed unto salvation from the beginning, others must be foreordained to condemnation from the beginning also; for these words cannot be understood of any prophecy of old, in which it was forewritten, or prophesied of these men, that they should be condemned for their ungodliness; not in

Mt 24:1, in which no such persons are described as here, nor any mention made of their punishment or condemnation; nor in 2Pe 2:1; for then the apostle would never have said that they were “of old”, a long while ago, before written, or prophesied of, since according to the common calculation, that epistle of Peter’s, and this of Jude’s, were written in the same year; nor in the prophecy of Enoch, Jude 1:14; for Enoch’s prophecy was not written, as we know of; and therefore these men could not be said to be before written in it; besides, that prophecy is spoken of as something distinct from these persons being before written, to condemnation; and after all, was a prophecy referred to, the sense would be the same, since such a prophecy concerning them must be founded upon an antecedent ordination and appointment of God; the word here used does not intend their being forewritten in any book of the Scriptures, but in the book of God’s eternal purposes and decrees; and the justice of such a preordination appears by the following characters of them,

ungodly men: all men are by nature ungodly, some are notoriously so, and false teachers are generally such; here it signifies such who are destitute of the fear of God, and of all internal devotion, and powerful godliness; and who did not worship God externally, according to his institutions and appointments, and much less sincerely, and in a spiritual manner; and who even separated themselves from the true worshippers of God, and gave themselves up to sensuality, and therefore their condemnation was just:

turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness; not the love and favour of God, as in his own heart, or as shed abroad in the hearts of others; for that can never, be turned to such a purpose, it always working in a contrary way; nor the principle of grace wrought in the soul, which being of a spiritual nature, lusteth against the flesh, and cannot be turned into it; more likely the goodness of God in his providential dispensations, which is despised by some, and abused by others; but rather the doctrine of grace, which though lasciviousness is not in its nature, nor has it any natural tendency to it, yet wicked men turn or transfer it from its original nature, design, and use, to a foreign one: and they may be said to turn it into lasciviousness, either by asserting it to be a licentious doctrine, when it is not; or by treating it in a wanton and ludicrous manner, scoffing at it, and lampooning it; or by making the doctrine of grace universal, extending it equally alike to all mankind, and thereby harden and encourage men in sin.

And denying the only Lord God; God the Father, who is the only sovereign Lord, both in providence and grace; and the only God, not to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, but in opposition to nominal and fictitious deities, or Heathen gods; and he was denied by these men, if not in words, yet in works: the word “God” is left out in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Vulgate Latin version.

And our Lord Jesus Christ; as his deity, or sonship, or humanity, or that he was the Messiah, or the alone Saviour, or his sacrifice, satisfaction, and righteousness; with respect to either of which he may be said to be denied doctrinally, as he is also practically, when men do not walk worthy of their profession of him; and both might be true of these men, and therefore their condemnation was righteous. The copulative “and” is omitted in the Syriac version, which seems to make this clause explanative of the former.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Are crept in (). Second aorist passive indicative of (–), late (Hippocrates, Plutarch, etc.) compound of (beside) and (in) and to sink or plunge, so to slip in secretly as if by a side door, here only in N.T.

Set forth (). Perfect passive participle of , to write of beforehand, for which verb see Gal 3:1; Rom 15:4.

Unto this condemnation ( ). See 2Pe 2:3 for and . here apparently alludes to verses Jude 1:14; Jude 1:15 (Enoch).

Ungodly men (). Keynote of the Epistle (Mayor), in 15 again as in 2Pet 2:5; 2Pet 3:7.

Turning (). Present active participle of , to change, for which verb see Ga 1:6. For the change of “grace” () into “lasciviousness ( ) see 1Pet 2:16; 1Pet 4:3; 2Pet 2:19; 2Pet 3:16.

Our only Master and Lord ( ). For the force of the one article for one person see on 2Pe 1:1. For of Christ see 2Pe 2:1.

Denying (). So 2Pe 2:1. See also Matt 10:33; 1Tim 5:8; Titus 1:16; 1John 2:22.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

With the whole verse compare 2Pe 2:1.

Crept in unawares [] . Rev., privily. See on 2Pe 2:1. The verb means to get in by the side [] , to slip in by a side – door. Only here in New Testament.

Ordained [] . The meaning is in dispute. The word occurs four times in New Testament. In two of these instances pro has clearly the temporal sense before (Rom 14:4; Eph 3:3). In Gal 3:1, it is taken by some in the sense of openly, publicly (see note there). It seems better, on the whole, to take it here in the temporal sense, and to render written of beforehand, i e., in prophecy as referred to in vv. 14, 15. So the American Rev.

Lasciviousness. See on 1Pe 4:3.

Lord God. God is omitted in the best texts. On Lord [] , see on 2Pe 2:1.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For” (Greek gar) – the reason or occasion for writing, as follows –

2) “There are (exist) certain men” – “certain” meaning specific men and certain meaning kind of men.

3) “Crept” – (Greek pareiseduesan) meaning sneaked in, stole in, stealthily infiltrated in – with ulterior motive “in sheeps clothing”, like wolves jackals coyote , and vampire bats, creatures of the darkness. “Unawares” – at first unnoticed, unrecognized, in sheep’s clothing. Of such Mat 7:15 warns “beware” Act 20:29-32 cautions, “grievous wolves shall enter” and admonished, “watch and remember.” Avoid these and expose them when they arise among your fellowship – practicing worldly things and speaking evil of great doctrines. 2Pe 2:1-10; 2Pe 2:12-14.

4) “Who were before of old ordained (set in order) to this condemnation.” Moral and doctrinal wrong, when embraced, from the fall of Satan and the fall of man, have had penalties of Divine judgement pronounced, fixed for the doers of wrong. When Lucifer fell, he did it by disobedience and presumptive imposition against God’s law for him – Likewise Adam and Eve had received the condemnation (ordained) set in order by the Lord – But this does not mean each was not a creature of accountable will or volition for choices and actions, Isa 14:12-17; Gen 2:16-17. Satan, like his followers, sneaked into the fellowship of God’s sanctified human family and garden and started peddling lies, discord, division and death. Gen 3:14; Rom 5:12; Rom 6:23.

5) “Ungodly men” (Greek – asebeis) professed religious people can be ungodly, impious. –

a) Cain was, killed his brother Gen 4:3-8

b) Baal’s false prophets were 1Ki 18:4; 1Ki 18:40

c) Nebuchadnezzar was – required worship of a statue Dan 5:19-23.

d) Herod was – slew James, Act 12:1-4; Act 12:22-23.

6) “Turning” (Greek – metatithentes) diverting the grace of our God – the person of our sanctified fellowship “into lasciviousness” – loose immoral conduct and behaviour – these were Iiving Iives that contradicted the principle of saving, (delivering) grace – which teaches to deny one’s self of the practice of ungodliness, immoral behavior, Tit 2:12.

7) “And (Greek Kai) denying– by manner of life.

8) “The only Lord God” there is but one true Lord (Greek – kurios – Master) – our Lord Jesus Christ Act 4:12; He is the one Saviour and one (only) Lord, true trustworthy, to be obeyed – who said “follow me” Mat 4:19; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:5-6. When religious “creeps” enter by covert means among God’s flock, let them be manifest by shining the light of the Word on them for what they are, as moral and doctrinal wolves, jackals, coyotes, vampire bats, and nocturnal creatures who feast in lust, lasciviousness, worldliness and oppose “the faith”.

INFILTRATION

1 ) Like the subversive Greeks who gained entrance into Troy by hiding in a hollow wooden horse, religious creeps sneak in unawares to subvert the people.

2)Like Judas Iscariot – lied to get in – to be ordained etc.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares. Though Satan is ever an enemy to the godly, and never ceases to harass them, yet Jude reminds those to whom he was writing of the state of things at that time. Satan now, he says, attacks and harasses you in a peculiar manner; it is therefore necessary to take up arms to resist him. We hence learn that a good and faithful pastor ought wisely to consider what the present state of the Church requires, so as to accommodate his doctrine to its wants.

The word παρεισέδυσαν, which he uses, denotes an indirect and stealthy insinuation, by which the ministers of Satan deceive the unwary; for Satan sows his tares in the night, and while husbandmen are asleep, in order that he may corrupt the seed of God. And at the same time he teaches us that it is an intestine evil; for Satan in this respect also is crafty, as he raises up those who are of the flock to do mischief, in order that they may more easily creep in.

Before of old ordained. He calls that judgment, or condemnation, or a reprobate mind, by which they were led astray to pervert the doctrine of godliness; for no one can do such a thing except to his own ruin. But the metaphor is taken from this circumstance, because the eternal counsel of God, by which the faithful are ordained unto salvation, is called a book: and when the faithful heard that these were given up to eternal death, it behooved them to take heed lest they should involve themselves in the same destruction. It was at the same time the object of Jude to obviate danger, lest the novelty of the thing should disturb and distress any of them; for if these were already long ago ordained, it follows that the Church is not tried or exercised but according to the infallible counsel of God. (192)

The grace of our God. He now expresses more clearly what the evil was; for he says that they abused the grace of God, so as to lead themselves and others to take an impure and profane liberty in sinning. But the grace of God has appeared for a far different purpose, even that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live soberly, righteously, and godly in this world. Let us, then, know that nothing is more pestilential than men of this kind, who from the grace of Christ take a cloak to indulge in lasciviousness. (193)

Because we teach that salvation is obtained through God’s mercy alone, the Papists accuse us of this crime. But why should we use words to refute their effrontery, since we everywhere urge repentance, the fear of God, and newness of life, and since they themselves not only corrupt the whole world with the worst examples, but also by their ungodly teaching take away from the world true holiness and the pure worship of God? Though I rather think, that those of whom Jude speaks, were like the libertines of our time, as it will be more evident from what follows.

The only Lord God, or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. (194) But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. That Christ, then, may retain us as his peculiar treasure, we must remember that he died and rose again for us, that he might have dominion over our life and death.

(192) The words literally are, “Who have been long ago (or, some time past) forewritten of for (or, as to) this judgment.” The reference is to prophecy; such creepers in for the purpose of corrupting the truth had been foretold; and this creeping in for such a purpose was a judgment for yielding up themselves to the delusions of Satan. The word πάλαι refers indefinitely to what is past, either long ago, or some time past. See Mat 11:21, and Mar 15:44. The reference may be to ancient prophecies, or to those of our Savior and his Apostles. — Ed

(193) “The grace of God” here is evidently the gospel. They transformed, says Grotius, the gospel to a libidinous doctrine. — Ed.

(194) Griesbach excludes Θεὸν, “God,” from the text: then the passage would correspond in sense, with 2Pe 2:1; literally, “denying the only sovereign and Lord of us, Jesus Christ.” The word δεσπότην, sovereign, or master, is used by Jude as well as by Peter. It was not the grace, but the ruling power of Christ that was denied; they boasted of his grace, but did not submit to him as a king. Hence the word δεσπότης is used — one exercising absolute power. We may render the words, “denying our only sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ.” — Ed

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

UNITARIANISMA DEGENERATING RELIGION

Jud 1:4.

This is the first chapter, from the authors volume on The Blight of Unitarianism.

THIS address is the beginning of a series upon the general subject The Blight of Unitarianism. It is our purpose to present this series in five separate addresses: 1. Unitarianisma Degenerating Religion; 2. Unitarianisman Ape in Theory and Practice; 3. Unitarianisman Enemy in the Evangelical Camp; 4. Unitarianisma Deadly Ecclesiastical Infection, and 5. Unitarianisma Conscienceless Church and College Thief.

These subjects may sound harsh to the sons of peace and the daughters of compromise, but we confidently expect, in the progress of this discussion, to prove their occasion and justify their employment.

A recent volume, entitled, My Belief, discusses Unitarianism, prefacing the treatment with this deliverance, In the whole discussion we must keep in charitable touch with our Unitarian fellow-Christians.

Such a remark is characterized by both inconsistency and superficiality. It is certainly a strange procedure to acknowledge as fellow-Christians those who reject the Christ. We can keep in charitable touch with Unitarianism as fellow-citizens, but even to call them fellow-Christians is an offense to their own religious convictions. In this series, they shall not be charged with a fellowship which they flatly reject.

In speaking on Unitarianisma Degenerating Religion, we shall endeavor to show that theologically it began on a much higher plane than it holds at present, and that if another hundred years shall mark progress in the same direction, it will be boastingly atheistic.

In discussing Unitarianisman Ape in Theory and Practice, we shall prove by copious quotations that it is based upon the Darwinian ape theory, and that it has never shown any originality in any religious movement, and that its attempts at aping the evangelical churches have been pathetic failures.

In discussing Unitarianisman Enemy in the Evangelical Camp, we shall show by their own admissions that they prefer to be found in evangelical bodies, since their work against evangelical Christianity can be more effective from the inside than if it were waged from without.

In discussing Unitarianisma Deadly Ecclesiastical Infection, we shall abundantly prove that wherever its doctrines have been surreptitiously adopted, in that proportion that evangelical body has declined; while in speaking of Unitarianism a Conscienceless Church and College Thief, we shall rehearse the instances in which it has stolen churches, consciencelessly appropriated colleges, and prove, beyond doubt, that it is nothing better than an ecclesiastical bandit.

To the text then:

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)

There will be occasion to return to this text more than once in this series, as it contains an inspired description of the procedure by which Unitarianism has wrought its theological and ecclesiastical havoc, as well as the final fruit of the philosophy which results in the denying of the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. This has come about by a constant decline in faith on the part of those professing this particular religion that can only be justly described by the word degenerating. I may be pardoned if I largely limit what I have to say to the history of Unitarianism in America.

ORIGINALLY IT WAS NEAR-EVANGELICAL

Dr. Ezra Ripley, Unitarian preacher of Concord, said, I am not sensible of having departed in any degree from the doctrines properly called the doctrines of grace. The best of the early Unitarians did not deny the inspiration of the Bible, the reality and banefulness of sin, nor yet the Saviourhood of Jesus Christ.

They did not deny the inspiration of the Bible. We are told that the Rev. W. B. O. Peabody used to conduct Bible training courses from an interleaved Bible, much after the Moody manner, and one reports his comments on the third chapter of John and his emphasis upon the absolute necessity of regeneration or being born again.

Ernest Gordon in The Leaven of the Sadducees tells us that Samuel May was brought up in the Kings Chapel, and May said of the preaching of Dr. Greenwood, It contained little or nothing that an evangelical Christian could not cordially subscribe to.

Forty years ago, when I was a very young minister, my Unitarian neighbor pastors, instead of trying to disprove the authority and inspiration of the Bible, attempted to prove Unitarianism by rather copious quotations from the same. The custom then was not as nowa repudiationbut, rather, a contortion of Scripture.

They did not originally deny the reality and banefulness of sin. Ralph Waldo Emersons father said, This doctrine of human depravity, whose truth is sanctioned by universal observation and experience, is a doctrine of the Christian revelation, and he who preaches it preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil. By His sufferings and death He proves the inherent and unchanging mercy of God, moves sinful men to penitence and reformation, and thence expiates their guilt and procures their pardon of sin.

Dr. Freeman, predecessor in Kings Chapel of Dr. Greenwood, wrote, Let no man say when I am dead that I trusted in my own merits. I trust only in the mercy of God through Jesus Christ, voicing in that single sentence his respect for Bible teaching, his sense of sin and his faith in Jesus Christ.

They did not originally repudiate the Saviourhood of Jesus Christ. Hezekiah Packard, prominent Unitarian in his day, declared, I have nothing but Christ to trust to, and I hope to be clothed with my Saviours righteousness, and when death .drew nigh and he was asked if he feared the last enemy, he answered, I do not think much of the King of Terrors; my thoughts are on the King of Glory, and his last whispers were of Rock, Redeemer, Shepherd.

John Stuart Mill, in his posthumous book on the Utility of Religion and Theism, writes of Christ, It is Christ rather than God whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for humanity. It is God incarnate, more than the God of the Jews, or of nature, who, being idealized, has taken so great and salutary a hold on the modern mind. And whatever else may be taken away by rational criticism, Christ is still left, a unique figure, not more unlike His precursors than all His followers, even those who had the direct benefit of His personal teaching. It is of no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the gospels, is not historical. * * * * Who among His disciples, or among their proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels?

Even Theodore Parker, who was a leader in the downgrade of Unitarian theology, and whose later deliverances concerning Jesus of Nazareth were as sacrilegious as superficial, once wrote of Him, Nazareth was no Athens, where philosophy breathed in the circumambient air; it had neither Porch nor Lyceum, not even a school of the prophets. There is God in the heart of this youth. That mightiest heart that ever beat, stirred by the Spirit of God, how it wrought in His bosom! Renan expressly said, The day on which Jesus uttered His saying (Joh 4:24), He was truly the Son of God.

In fact, there seems to have been, seventy-five to a hundred years ago, a whole school of Unitarians, and they were the leading school, who as Emerson said of Dr. Ezra Ripley, had a constitutional leaning in their religion toward the camp of the Puritan fathers. But time took away from them this entire tendency and the movement came to be

CONSONANT WITH ITS NAME, UNITARIAN

Turn to your Standard Dictionary and you will find that a Unitarian is a member of any religious body that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. The same dictionary tells us that the more conservative of these accept the Bible and the Divinity (as distinguished from Deity) of Christ, while the more radical are rationalistic and some hold merely a form of deism.

Augustus H. Strong, the late President of Rochester Theological Seminary, a theological giant, said of Unitarianism, Christianity without Christ becomes agnosticism and paganism. Dethroning Christ and counting Him mere man, the Unitarian is left with a conception of God so vague and unmoral, that Stoicism and self-righteousness take the place of humility and faith. * * * * Unitarianism is not progressive but retrogressive thought. * *

When New England broke away from evangelical theology, no real theology was left to it, and its gravitation was downward. The high Arianism of Channing gave place to the half-fledged pantheism of Parker; and Parkers faith or lack of faith was followed by the full-fledged pantheism of Emerson. And this will all be abundantly illustrated as we proceed with this discourse.

Its first downward step was the rejection of the God claim of the Christ. In this degradation Theodore Parker was a leader. He said, It is folly, even impiety, to say that God cannot create a greater soul than that of Jesus of Nazareth. He denominated the Lords Supper a heathenish rite. He placed the crucifixion of Jesus on a level with the employment of the huxter, merchant, lawyer, harlot, minister, poetess, orator and black Dinah, and declared that it made no difference whether ones work be by the way of a basket, a warehouse, or a mop, or a cross.

It was this descent in faith that lead Prof. F. D. Huntington of Harvard to quit the society after it had bestowed upon him multiplied distinctions, and to describe his departure from its fellowship as the leaving of a barren and dry land where no water was, and assigned as his reason for so doing, Christianity cannot be accounted for on the Unitarian theory of Christ; and it was he, who, in an article in the Forum, June, 1886, asked, Is there anywhere in ecclesiastical annals an instance of so swift a plunge downwards in any association of people bearing the Name of Christ by simply losing hold of the central fact of revelation?

It was the same observation that led Oliver Wendell Holmes to say, as Prof. Francis S. Child claims to have heard him remark, I can see no excuse for Unitarianism to exist longer, while Childs himself gave the following testimony, Father, who was born on Salem Street, Boston, 1825, in his great grandfather Paul Reveres house, united with the local Methodist church on confession when about fourteen years of age. When a professor at Harvard about 1850, his letters from then to 1860 to my mother were full of deepest faith and often referred to the Cross in the most devout and sweetly fervent manner. But mother was a Unitarian, her mother, own cousin to Dr. Channing, and together they attended the First Parish (Unitarian) church. Prof. F. G. Peabody was their pastor. When I was ten years old (1879), family prayers, regularly held up to that period, were dropped off. Father ceased going to church more than once in a great while by 1885. At his death in my arms in the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1896, he had lost all faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour, and I, under the influence, was utterly without hope and in the depths of despair. I was convicted of sin and joined the First Congregational Church, Cambridge, on confession of faith in November, 1900. Papa was always an intense lover of the Bible, but read it, alas! little after 1880, or at least less and less, except that being professor of English literature he taught the Bible as literature once in three years.

I ought to say that Unitarianism, which ruined papas happiness and peace and likely his eternal joy and spoiled all my childhood, youth, and young manhood, I have observed to be always deteriorating and disintegrating in its influence and effect, spiritually and morally. I know many instances, especially in the leading families of Boston.

It came also to dispute the authority and integrity of the Bible. That custom, exceptional in the day of Theodore Parker, is now extremely common. Our own local celebrity, of Minneapolis, is an illustration. In a sermon preached some months since in the Garrick Theater, Minneapolis, he set forth the Biblical theory of salvation as resting in Jesus the only begotten Son of God, the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice and the efficiency of His saving grace, and he says, This whole Christian doctrine of atonement rests throughout upon the foundation of the story of Adam and Eve, and then adds, I need not waste any time this morning in showing an audience like this the purely legendary character of this whole narrative in Genesis. We know today, as a result of our Biblical criticism, as well as of our knowledge of the doctrine of evolution, that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be classed with the sober facts of history, but with the great mass of Greek myth and Roman legend and Arabian fairy tale, which is ingenious and beautiful, but which no one outside of a kindergarten thinks for a moment of accepting as true. The whole story of the creation and fall of man have the symbols of fable and legend stamped upon every word and letter.

Such is the estimation set upon the sacred Scriptures by present-day Unitarianism. In another sermon he says, I insist, then, that to accept the Christian claim in regard to the Bible is not an innocent belief, a harmless faith. It is something that stands squarely in the way of human progress, more than anything else of which I know.

Is there anything stranger known to a country whose progress and accomplishments are to so great an extent the pure product of the Christian faith than a body of people professing religion, even employing in their services the Bible as a text book and voicing in their songs Biblical sentiments; than this downgrade in theological thinking that makes of them sappers and miners of the very foundations of that faith which has brought to the world its greatest and practically its only blessing, and of that Book which has for two thousand years, in its entirety, and for thirty-five hundred in its older portions, been the worlds one and only adequate moral luminary? Naturally, this downgrade in theology reaches a further stage.

It denies the reality of sin and the necessity of salvation. The same local representative of Unitarianism, in one of his addresses, informs his audience to this effect, With the passing of this Adam and Eve story there comes the total collapse of the whole Christian dogma of atonement. If the first man never sinned, as described in the Book of Genesis, then there is no sin for his descendants to inherit; and if there is no sin to inherit ** then of course there is no need of atonement; and if there is no need of atonement, then there is no need of God sending into the world His only begotten Son that through Him the world might be saved. It continues further, Man is not totally depraved; he does not need to be saved from the wrath of God; he does not need to have any faith in a Divine Redeemerall of these conceptions are simply untrue from start to finish, and all the familiar ideas of atonement and redemption, conversion and regeneration, heaven and hell, which comprise the fabric of the great doctrine of Christian salvation, must be utterly surrendered by every great student of the facts.

Later he tells us, The only salvation man needs is a change of social environment, and reaches his conclusion by declaring, This salvation is effected by means of education rather than redemption.

Thats an interesting deliverance! It declares that two thousand years of Christian history have been in vain; yea, worse than in vain, since in his conception the dogma of the atonement, central in the entire Christian system, has impeded progress.

How strange then, how exceedingly strange, is the fact that those countries to which the Christian Scriptures have been carried and in which Christian ministers and Christian laymen have wrought as missionaries, pastors, evangelists and teachers, have become the most civilized and desirable countries of the world. In them social wrongs have been most rapidly righted, mechanical inventions have marked the most rapid progress, higher education has found its best friends, and those amenities that tend to sweeten and sanctify life have best flourished.

The illustration is most unfortunate for its author. He holds that the ancient world perished because its individuals sought to save themselves instead of the whole of society, and, as a result, the heathenism of the north rolled down upon Greece and Rome and so far polluted the civilizing process, as not only to arrest it, but to utterly overthrow and crush the same.

But what about the education of Greece and Rome? Certainly that medium of salvation to which this modern has linked his faith for future good was neither forgotten nor yet neglected in Greece and Rome.

Prof. Conklin of Princeton, himself one of the leading exponents of the very evolutionary process which Mr. Dietrich adopts as his religion, tells us of the intellectual and cultural advantages enjoyed by Greece 500 to 300 years before Christ. He says,

In the two centuries between 500 and 300 B. C., the small and relatively barren country of Attica, with an area and total population about equal to that of the present State of Rhode Island, but with less than one-fifth as many free persons, produced at least 25 illustrious men, and quotes approvingly Galtons conclusion that the average ability of the Athenian race of that period was, on the lowest estimate, as much greater than that of the English race of the present days as the latter is above that of the African negro.

If education is a savior, why did not Greece become the worlds savior? If culture is the redeemer of the race, what happened to paralyze its redeeming powers at the very moment when it had reached its acme? If we are told that the intellectual culture of 2,500 years ago lacked the mechanical contrivances known to modern education, which go to affect the amenities of life and to soften the very struggle for existence, let us not forget the late experience with Germanythe worlds educational center, nor yet the allegory of R. F. Horton, the Old Worlds prominent liberal as applied to America. It runs after this manner, The Spirit of Modern Progress one day called up a human being, and said to him, I perceive that you are discontented with your life. You long for things beyond your power. Tell me, now, what it is that will make you happy, and I will give it to you. If you have such wonderful power at your command, then make my life more comfortable, for I am weary of it. You ask what is easy, replied the Spirit; and thereupon he gave the human being beautiful cities, with streets that were sometimes clean, and police departments that were occasionally efficient. He gave him handsome houses with modern plumbing and electric lights, and a thousand other things that made life comfortable.

Now, said the Spirit, do you wish for anything more? for you have but to ask and I will give it to you. I should wish, replied the human being, that my business life were more comfortable, That, too, is easy. answered the Spirit, and thereupon he gave the human being telephones and telegraphs, railroads and steamships. And after this the human being asked that his pleasures be made more comfortable, and thereupon the Spirit gave him fireproof theaters and comic operas, motor cars and yachts.

Then again the Spirit asked, Do you still desire more? and the human being replied, Yes, make my religion more comfortable. That is simplicity itself, answered the Spirit, and thereupon he gave the human being magnificent churches, good preachers, and twenty-minute sermons. And now, asked the Spirit, are you satisfied at last, or is there something yet lacking to your happiness? Yes, answered the human being, my conscience troubles me. Make that comfortable. That is the easiest thing of all, said the Spirit; and thereupon he did away with the personal devil and gave the human being an easy-going summer and a hell that made a comfortable winter resort. At that the human being fell back into his easy chair and remarked, Really, my dear Spirit, you have made religion so comfortable that I shall hardly need think of it, and he buried himself in the Sunday newspaper. As for the Spirit, he began to float out of the window. Where are you going? asked the human being. To see my father, said the Spirit. He is dying. And who is your father? The Spirit of Nobility, replied the Spirit of Modern Progress. He is on his last legs.

I ask in all candor if that is not the exact condition of society in the very moment when education is more easy and more universal, the world over, than ever since man had a beginning. Take the immoral conditions of colleges that are now exciting the interest, not alone of educators, but of the general publicconditions that are raising questions so serious that no philosopher has risen with an adequate answer, and tell me if there is the slightest prospect that Education, divorced from Christianity, promises anything to the future than a new paganism, so tending to an unbridled license and to the exercise of unmeasured lust that it looks to the repetition of history in the degradation of the present-day civilized nations to the same point to which Babylon, Greece and Rome plunged?

Education has never proven itself even a moral force. It gives a veneer to civilization, but it makes no contribution to righteousness of character.

Chicago is an educational center. Many of the biggest universities and most important theological seminaries are located in that city. Its schools of all sorts represent not millions, but billions of investment; and yet, at this moment it is doubtful if there is a more besodden city on the face of the earth. Its crimes are incalculable in number and unthinkable in character. On a recent visit to that city I saw more drunkenness in one day than I have witnessed in three years in my extensive travels in other cities. Its murders per annum would equal, if they did not exceed, England and one-half dozen European governments combined. Take the evangelical churches out of Chicago and leave it with its schools only, for fifty years, and there is not a self-respecting man on earth that would think of making it his residence place, or even permitting his wife or daughter to pass through the same, unattended by an armed bodyguard.

But the man who can believe in the hypothesis of evolutionan hypothesis that has not a scintilla of evidence in all the earthcan also believe that education will save, in spite of the fact that all human history opposes his expectation.

It is, however, an evidence of some remaining remnant of sanity that one living in a world, sin-cursed as this one is, should feel the need of salvation, and since Divine redemption has been rejected by Unitarians, it is only natural, perhaps, that they should seek to substitute human education.

One needs to change the language of Prof. Gwatkiniri but a single word to make it applicable. You may worship Christ or you may seat education upon the throne of God and worship that.

Choose you this day which! The first makes you a Christian believer; the second makes you a pagan idolater.

But the end is not yet.

UNITARIANISM IS NOW ATHEISTIC

Having put away the Son, it now repudiates the Father. This also is a fulfilment of Scripture.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.

In a recently published sermon, a prominent Unitarian preacher, a leader of that society, attempted to define God. He made it out that all nature had in it a resident force or energy. Then, to save himself from the charge of atheism, he argued that this force or energy is omnipresent; in other words, it is everywhere. He also insisted that it was eternalnever had a beginning and it would never have an end. His language is, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. He claimed for it infinity, omnipotence, and finally consciousness. At the sight of this word consciousness, we thought that after all he was going to admit a personal God, and so put himself in line with Theists at least. But, alas, for the theological downgrade in this denomination! He had no such intent. The consciousness of which he spake he found in man, and in man alone. Hence, the only conscious god, or even manifestation of God with which he is familiar, is mana conclusion that must inevitably result in one of two thingsthe worship of man, which is idolatry, or the proclamation of only an unconscious godEnergy, which is atheism.

Having rejected the spiritual, Unitarianism adopts the mechanical. The mechanical theory of the universe is in popular vogue today in Unitarian circles. Again we quote the language of Augustus H. Strong, More and more the spirit of materialism and agnosticism has taken possession of the Unitarian body. They are accustomed to glorify nature, magnify science and multiply their praises to mechanical inventions. Here is a specimen of it. Electricity and steam, as they have been applied to the use of men, are doing more to bring about a sense of human solidarity, to help men understand the relations which exist between them on all parts of the globe, than all the prayers and all the preaching in all the churches of the last 1,900 years.

It is impossible to listen to these songs of worship, so extravagant in their praise of the material and so disparaging in their judgment of the spiritual, without remembering what Paul wrote to the Rom 1:18-25.

For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed IT unto them.

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, EVEN His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse;

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified HIM not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and Worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Finally, having flung away the Scriptures, Unitarianism accepts the gospel of Darwinism. In a sermon on The Kind of Salvation Man Needs, the Unitarian preacher says, Man was not created a few thousand years ago in a perfect condition, but he came into existence and reached his present stage of life by a long and gradual process of development from lower forms of existence. In other words, millions of years ago man was simply one of the numerous species of animals which then populated the earth. He was a mere animal creature struggling with all the other creatures for existence, and armed with all the unbridled and cruel passions of animal life necessary to his existence. Slowly, however, he began to rise, and little by little to differentiate himself from the other animals. He developed a brain which proved to be a more powerful factor in the struggle for existence than the strength and skill of the body. He developed emotions of sympathy and love, and human society with all its advantages for defense against the world came into existence. He developed a conscience that urged him to do those things which , contributed to the elevation of life. Thus little by little he took on the image of a man and slowly developed to his present stage of civilization.

It is evident, therefore, that the words of Christ had occasion, He that is not with Me is against Me. It is evident that this philosophy of religion, which began with a slight departure from the faith which was once delivered, is ending in the deepest, darkest and dankest atheism. Darwinism came to Unitarianism as a veritable boon when it had denied the central figure of Christianityeven Christ, and had parted from the shores of spiritual religion and had gone out on the seas of infidelity to face the winds and waves of skepticism without chart or compass. Darwin came with his atheistic philosophy of the universe, and this rudderless, puny Society seized that godless philosophy and it is now striving by naming the falsehood a science to make it sustain a religious faith. It is the action of a drowning man who strives to float ashore on pig iron. Unitarianism and Darwinism are sinking together. They are helping to carry each other down. The one entertains exactly the same prospect as the other. Being alike destitute of the truth, they are destined to perish. The fires these two philosophies have sought to kindle have produced a darkening smoke, but never yet has either of them sent up a flame. They are void alike of light and warmth, and in the language of the late Geo. B. Foster of the University of Chicago, an ardent exponent of both, their attempt to cleave to the sunnier side of doubt, is a vain one, and the prayer of their Apostles, May there be light and warmth enough to keep us from freezing in the dark, is the prayer of men who have deliberately struck the sun from the heavens in the rejection of Jesus the Light of the World, and whose darkened paths and freezing souls are the sheer consequence of a voluntary infidelity.

So the Christian believer, however sadly he may feel to say it, is compelled to remark to the Unitarian, as to the modernist:

He that hath felt the spirit of the Highest Cannot confound or doubt Him or deny,Yea, with one breath, O world, though thou deniest, Stand thou on that side, for on this am I.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

A WRITTEN WARNING OF APOSTASY

Jud. 1:4

Text

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.

Queries

In your own words state why Jude is warning to contend earnestly for the faith.

10.

Does the text indicate that these false teachers would soon come, or had already come?

11.

Unto where had these ungodly men crept?

12.

What does the word crept indicate as to the manner in which the men came?

13.

The written beforehand of our text is more correct than the of old in the King James. There was a definite warning just as stated in 2 Peter chapter 3. It seems that this 2 Peter passage was written beforehand. See if you can find the exact quote in 2 Peter 3. Also note the warning given in 2 Peter 2.

14.

What is the condemnation which these men shall receive? (see 2Pe. 2:4-9)

15.

The word lasciviousness is associated with all the evils of the human heart. How could the grace of God be turned into lasciviousness?

16.

There are three words that describe the man Jesus. What are they in the text?

17.

There are three words that describe these condemned men. What are the three?

Paraphrases

A. 4.

It is necessary to fight for the faith because certain men have sneaked into the fellowship of saints for the purpose of changing the new life we have through grace into a life of evil deeds. In the process they also deny that Jesus is the Christ and our reigning Lord, who is our only Master. These are the ungodly men the former writing warned about, who, in the writing, were reserved unto a judgment of God.

B.*4.

I say this because some godless teachers have wormed their way in among you saying after we become Christians we can do just as we like without fear of Gods punishment. The fate of such people was written long ago, for they have turned against our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Summary

He explains that these ungodly men secretly came in to deceive by changing Gods grace to vile action and faith in Jesus to denial of Him. These are men who were condemned to eternal punishment.

Comment

There is something about the manner of expression that indicates the apostates have slipped in with stealth and deliberate intention to deceive. This is not a brother who has made a mistake, but a crafty deceiver who intends to lead the brother to make a mistake. These are like the false brethren in the Galatian church who unawares brought in, came privily to spy out our liberty. (Gal. 2:4) By the practice of cunning craftiness and sly deception of men they lie in wait to deceive (Eph. 4:14).

Such a clever enemy demands our utmost care and defense. His craftiness makes his camouflage hard to spot. He may have come out from among us, or he may have come in from outside. Like a mole he remains underground where he undermines the very faith of the brethren. His doctrine makes a life of loose-living seem proper: Who can say the Christian is not supposed to enjoy the good things of life? If God did not intend for us to sin a little, drink a little, lust a little, then He would not have allowed these things on earth! Besides that, we all sin a little . . . even the best of us. God certainly will not blame us for a little sin, for did He not give us all the same kind of a body with its appetites? Surely God will not expect us to become psychotic by restricting and inhibiting the desires which He gave us and which we all have in common.
On and on the argument goes. Such cleverness and subtle cunning tempts the elect of God to be ensnared in the tangled web of sinful disobedience, until finally he is defending that which once he preached against.

Their condemnation was before of old declared. The same expression is used in Heb. 1:1 and translated times past. When was this declaration of their condemnation made? The first and most likely answer seems to be found in 2 Peter chapter two. Yet both this passage and the one in Jude refer to Old Testament scriptures that reveal, by their examples, a condemnation. Immediate references are made to such Old Testament historical examples. The indication is that the same judgment received by the devil and his angels, by Sodom and Gomorrah, and by the Egyptians that laid spoil on the Israelites is the judgment (condemnation) that shall be given to these apostates.

It is also proper to note the judgment (condemnation) pronounced upon the ungodly men who are deceiving apostates, and not upon the saints of the church who are contending earnestly for the faith. The church certainly suffers because of the intruders, but it is the intruders who are under condemnation. Of course, one may argue that the church members who aid and agree with the intruders in their apostasy will also share with them in their judgment; but the judgment rightly belongs to the intruders. How careful Gods people must be not to share the sin of apostasy and thus share the judgment of apostasy!
Just as dangerous as leading the Christian in a life of loose-living, is the teaching that robs the saint of his faith in the person of Jesus. They deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. This particular phase of the apostasy may not appear to immediately harm the brethren, but in the long run it is the most venomous of all. The seed of doubt strikes at the very roots of the church, the foundation of the gospel, There is no teaching in the Christian system that has more importance than the teaching concerning who is this man Jesus.
The fact that Jesus is our only Master makes our relationship to Him and our understanding of who He is all the more important.

Lasciviousness describes conduct that is shameless and shocking to public decency. It is descriptive of petulant wantonness, or even licentious lechery. The apostasy is of such a nature that the good, acceptable, and complete will of God (Rom. 12:2) is changed into something vile and repulsive to the general public. This is the most repugnant of all apostasy in that wholesomeness is changed to corruption. It is no wonder that the warning appears so strong.

Jesus here is identified as Lord, the very fact denied by the apostates. Gods ruling power is indicated by the word. The Christians respect and submission to the rule of God makes the transformation of his life and the salvation of his soul the proper result of Gods grace. Truly blessed is the man who regards God as his absolute Lord.

That we are the servant of him whom we obey is an established fact of scripture. This is the Lord relationship. He is our Lord when we submit to Him as such. Otherwise, He is the Lord but not our Lord. The confession that Jesus is our Lord is an indirect objection to owning any other party as Lord. The man who submits to the appetites of the flesh and the deceptions of the devil by such also submits to his flesh and to the devil as his lord. As such, he has submitted himself to the very ones who will destroy his soul and bring him misery in even this life.

Apostasy of life is a result of apostasy of doctrine. The life we see, but the doctrine we believe. The most apparent problem in the church is the problem of life; but the most subtle is the problem of doctrine. Recognition and submission to the right Lord is the only foundation upon which the right life can be built.
True, the right doctrine does not guarantee the right life. One can recognize the fact of Jesus lordship and still not submit himself to the Lord. Many people will recognize the fact of the gospel but refuse to lay hold upon salvation. This in no way invalidates the importance of right doctrine. Jesus is the only absolute Lord and the only universal Lord, and this fact must be admitted and proclaimed before the problem of the right life can be adequately dealt with. Complete recognition of Christ as Lord is made with the life as well as with the lips.
A second fact denied by the ungodly men was that the man Jesus was the Christ promised in the Old Testament. The divinity of the Christ promised in the Old Testament was admitted, but the Gnostics claimed that no man could possess any more than a spark of the Divine; not even God Himself could put on sinful flesh. Thus, they said, Jesus was not the Christ, for such was an impossibility.
Denying the divinity of Jesus was not limited to the Gnostics. Just who was this man Jesus is the prime consideration of all Christianity and the quarrel of the modernist in religious circles today, To denounce unbelief is to denounce a large segment of religious leaders as well as many professing Christians. The fact that Jesus is the Christ is the confession of faith admitted by all true Christians and is the real mark of division.

The Messiahship of Jesus demands our recognition of Him as Lord and King. He is greater than Abraham, Moses and Solomon. He was more than a man in whom God dwelt, for He was God in the flesh. Jesus said concerning His own Person: This generation is an evil generation; it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For even as Jonah became a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Ninevah shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. (Luk. 11:29-32).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

4. For Reason for this burst of alarm.

Certain men Not, apparently, as yet a solid body, but a large number of individual leaders scattered throughout the Church of Jude’s section.

Crept in unawares Whose demoralizing teachings had circulated from the time of Simon Magus among the population outside of the Church. Their dogmas had streaked obscurely through the general atmosphere. But now, lo! their propagators have disclosed themselves in various quarters in the very bosom of the Church itself.

Ordained Fore-written or pre-described; that is, in the predictions of the apostles Paul and Peter, and in the evil types of the Old Testament, Cain, Balaam, and Korah, Jud 1:11. Thus the ancient Greek commentator, Theophylact, pertinently says: “He calls them fore-written because Peter and Paul had said concerning them that in the last times such deceivers” should come. The Greek word is sometimes used in the classics to signify the publicly, placarding the threatened death of a doomed individual. In this manner Sylla, the Roman consul, publicly advertised the names of persons whom he intended to execute. So the prophecies quoted by Jude were an advertisement that all those persons whose characters suited the prophetic descriptions were by those same prophecies advertised for death.

This condemnation The condemnation described in this epistle. Alford remarks, “It may be observed that the ultra-predestinarians, Beza and Calvin, find, as we might expect, strong defence for their views in their interpretation here. Beza, indeed, gathers from this place that ‘this eternal decree of God comprehends not only the event, but especially the persons themselves.’”

Into lasciviousness Making Christianity subservient to sexual lusts. This trait identifies them with the Nicolaitans.

Lord Greek , despotes, whence our word despot.

God This word is rejected by the best critics as a spurious reading. It then becomes a question whether God or Christ is here designated. The word despotes designates God in Rev 6:10, and Act 4:24; Luk 2:29. But in the parallel passage in 2Pe 2:1, it designates Christ. By the usually received doctrine of the Greek article the rendering would be denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. This seems the more probable sense, as the heretics did not so much reject the true God as the true Christ.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For there are certain men crept in surreptitiously, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.’

Note the suggested insidiousness of their movements. They did not come in openly as those who professed to have a different Gospel, but tried to present their ideas as being the same as the genuine Gospel. But God’s people should recognise that this was simply what had been prophesied of old, that there would be men who turned the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1:25). ‘They say, “Peace, peace,” where there is no peace.’ (Jer 6:14; Jer 8:11). Indeed he will go on to demonstrate how the Scriptures have already condemned them.

They are guilty of two things. Firstly they turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. They make God’s free grace a grounds for sinful behaviour. Many do that today when they say, ‘You can have Jesus as your Saviour, without having Him as your Lord’. That is making a mockery of the grace of God. Not all may go as far as these men did, but the principle is the same.

Secondly they ‘deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ’. The ‘only’ indicates that they did this by making Him only one among a number. It is not that they totally rejected Him. It was more subtle. They degraded Him by refusing to see Him as their only Lord and their only Master. And it is probable also that, as with those described in 2 Peter, they denied His earthly coming in the flesh, and His second coming in the flesh, seeing Him simply as a spirit being.

Any who introduce intermediaries between ourselves and God other than our One Mediator Jesus Christ are guilty of this heresy. It is a grave danger for Roman Catholics when they allow Mary and the saints to be intermediaries. It is not long before subconsciously they are relying on them for salvation. And the same danger is inherent in what is called Christian spiritism. For the truth is that there is only one God, and only one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1Ti 2:5). None others are necessary.

On the other hand those who fail to see that God became truly man in Christ Jesus are also equally guilty of this heresy. For the fact that true God became true man is central to the Gospel.

Three Examples Of How God Has Dealt In The Past With Those Who Behaved In A Similar Way.

Jude now selects three incidents from the Old Testament which demonstrate what happened to people who were guilty of similar sins. They are especially interesting as they cover the whole of mankind together with heavenly beings. The first concerns the people of the Law, representing the Jews. The second concerns heavenly beings. The third concerns the people outside the Law, the equivalent of Gentiles. The first is an example of open disobedience and unwillingness to depend only on God, even though they have seen His power to save. The second is an example of where ‘angelic beings’ deserted their own sphere to intermingle with another sphere, thus corrupting both themselves and those with whom they intermingled. And the third is the incident where the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah and their surrounding towns had sunk into gross indecency, and even tried to become involved with angels in their evil acts. The first incident ended in destruction. The second ended in their being kept in everlasting bonds until the final Day of Judgment. The third resulted in their suffering ‘eternal fire’, a fire that had eternal consequences from which there was no recovery. Thus in each case the punishment was final.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jud 1:4. For there are certain men crept in, &c. The creeping in unawares, in St. Jude, has a plain resemblance and reference to the privily bringing in mentioned by St. Peter, 2Pe 2:1. Both the words in the original are formed upon the same sentiment, and are meant to describe the craft and subtle insinuation of the new false teachers. The turning the grace of God into lasciviousness in St. Jude, answers to the damnable heretics in St. Peter. Instead of ordained, the word,

rather signifies described, or set forth of old. Doddridge observes well upon this verse, that may well signifydescribed, or put upon record; that is, “whose character and condemnation may be considered as described in the punishment of other notorious sinners, who were a kind of representatives of them:” which interpretation, says he, I prefer to any other, as it tends to clear God of that heavy imputation which it must bring upon his moral attributes, to suppose that he appoints men to sin against him, and then condemns them for doing what they could not but do, and what they were, independent on their own freedom of choice, fated to: a doctrine so pregnant with gloom, and, as I should fear, with fatal consequences, that I think it part of the duty I owe to the word of God, to rescue it from the imputation of containing such a tenet. Dr. Benson very justly observes, that the word does not denote their sin, but the condemnation of them because of their sin; and that , of old, does not signify “from all eternity,” but “from a former time, or a time long since past:” and I would propose it as a query, says he, whether they have not, in later ages, turned the grace of God into licentiousness, who have held that men are decreed unto salvation, absolutely and unconditionally, or without any regard to their virtue and piety; that God sees no sin in believers; that good works are in no sense necessary to salvation; that God loves men never the better because of their holiness, nor ever the worse because of their unholiness. I do not suppose that all who have professed these, and the like opinions, have held the consequences, or even perceived them; but the query is, Whether the opinions do not tend to licentiousness? The last clause of this verse affords a strong proof of the Divinity of our Saviour.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Jud 1:4 . Compare 2Pe 2:1-3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

4 .] For there crept in (aor. explaining the arising of the occasion of his thus writing. On , cf. 2Pe 2:1 , , and note: also Gal 2:4 , where we have both and . Secrecy, and lack of legitimate introduction, are plainly expressed in this word. “ Crept in ,” viz. into the Christian church) certain men (“le mot a quelque chose de mprisant, comme dans Gal 2:12 ,” Arnaud. And so, it may be observed, has in this connexion) ( men ) who have been of old written down in prophecy (by the . these persons are again brought up and designated; q. d. “namely, the very men who &c.” has been variously interpreted. The prep. may have two meanings: either 1) that of time, previously, as in Gal 3:1 , where the various meanings of the word are discussed: 2) that of publicity, “ openly ,” taking “to proscribe” as the sense of the word. But it is against this latter that this sense is never found in the N. T.: and that “proscribed,” if taken in its usual meaning, will not admit of following it. Wolf’s interpretation, “qui dudum sunt accusati in hoc judicium,” lets go the proscripti altogether. There can be little doubt then that we must keep to its temporal sense, as indeed do c., Thl. (but understanding the reference wrongly: , . . . .), and most recent Commentators. Then, thus understanding it, to what time and fact are we to refer such designation of them? Clearly not to God’s eternal purpose, in this place, from the term , which, as Huther remarks, is never used of that purpose, but points to some fact in time . And if so, then the previous writing down of these men can only point to the O. T. prophecies. In that case there is a pregnant construction, “of old fore-described (and destined).” What special description of them is intended, might be difficult to say were it not for the quotation below Jud 1:14 from the prophecy of Enoch. The warnings contained in the historical facts adduced below may also be meant. It may be observed that the ultra-prdestinarians, Beza and Calvin, find, as we might expect, strong defence for their views in their interpretation here. Beza indeed gathers from this place, “hoc ternum Dei decretum non modo eventum rerum, sed ipsas imprimis personas comprehendere”) to this judgment (what judgment, or rather result of judgment? “Judicium de quo mox,” as Bengel: the sentence which St. Jude has in his mind and proceeds in the following verses to unfold. , as so often, though not = , yet gets the condemnatory meaning from the character of the context), impious, changing the grace of our God ( , the gift of grace, the state of salvation, in which our sins are forgiven us and we are admitted into the freedom of God’s children. , drawing closer the bond of God’s true children to Him and one another, and thus producing greater abhorrence of those who have thus abused His grace) into lasciviousness (the words might mean, “perverting the grace of our God in the direction of, for the purpose of, lasciviousness:” and so De Wette: but it is against this, that in reff. is simply to change, not to pervert: and we therefore must understand, as above, that they made the state of grace and Christian liberty into a state of (moral) licence and wantonness: as Bed e , “hanc ejus gratiam transferunt in luxuriam, qui nunc tanto licentius et liberius peccant quanto minus se vident asperitate legis de admissis facinoribus examinari”), and denying (see 2Pe 2:1 ) the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ (in 2Pe 2:1 is used of Christ: which circumstance might tempt us to refer it to Christ here also: and so Bengel, De Wette, Stier, al. But probability seems to weigh on the other side. In every other place (see reff.) is used of God: 2) the addition seems to bind this meaning to it here: (3) 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. For these reasons I must agree 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).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Jud 1:4 . Nature of the Threatened Danger . It is stealthy; it is serious enough to have been predicted long ago; its characteristic is impiety, showing itself in the antinomian misuse of the Gospel of God’s free grace, and in the denial of God and Christ.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Jud 1:4 . . For this form which is found in [784] and adopted by WH, Veitch cites in Hippocr. 1. 601, and compares , . The aor. is here used with the perfect force, as in Jud 1:11 , etc. cf. Blass, Gr. p. 199, my edition of St. James, p. 202. and Dr. Weymouth there cited. The verb occurs in Deinades 178, , Clem. Al. p. 659 , D. Laert. ii. 142. , Plut. M. p. 216 B, , , other examples in Wetst. The noun occurs in Barn. ii. 10, iv. 9, , Clem. Al. p. 189, . Similar compounds are in 2Pe 1:5 , in 2Pe 2:1 , in Gal 2:4 , , Rom 5:20 , 2Ma 8:1 , so , , . The earliest prophecy of such seducers comes from the lips of Jesus Himself, Mat 7:15 , , , , cf. Act 20:29-30 , and Introduction on the Early Heresies in the larger edition.

[784] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

. “Designated of old for this judgment.” Cf. 2Pe 2:3 , . The word precludes the supposition that the second epistle of Peter can be referred to. [785] The allusion is to the book of Enoch quoted in Jud 1:14-15 . In Jud 1:18 below the same warning is said to have been given by the Apostles. The phrase . is in apposition to , cf. Gal 1:7 with Lightfoot’s n., Luk 18:9 , . For ., cf. Rom 15:4 , . The word is intended to show that they are already doomed to punishment as enemies of God. As such they are to be shunned by the faithful, but not to be feared, because, dangerous as they may seem, they cannot alter the Divine purpose. Dr. Chase compares Hort’s interesting note on 1Pe 2:8 , . By “this” Spitta understands “that judgment which I am now about to declare,” i.e. , the condemnation contained in the word used by some ancient writer. Zahn however remarks that usually refers to what precedes, and he would take here (with Hofmann) as referring to . Better than this logical reference to some preceding or succeeding word is, I think, Bengel’s explanation “the now impending judgment,” Apostolo iam quasi cernente pnam .

[785] Zahn, it is true, following Schott and others, argues in favour of this reference, holding that may be equivalent to “lately”; and the word is of course very elastic in meaning; but unless the contrast makes it clear that the reference is to a recent past, I think we are bound to assign to the word its usual force, especially here, where it stands first, giving the tone as it were to what follows, and is further confirmed and explained by in Jud 1:14 .

. This word may be almost said to give the keynote to the Epistle ( cf. Jud 1:15 ; Jud 1:18 ) as it does to the Book of Enoch.

. With this we may compare 1Pe 2:16 , , 2Pe 2:19 , , 2Pe 3:16 . , Rom 3:1-2 ; Rom 3:5-8 (If man is justified by free grace and not by works, then works are unnecessary), Rom 6:1 ; Rom 6:15 ; Rom 8:21 , 1Co 6:12 ; 1Co 10:23 f., Joh 8:32-36 , Gal 5:13 , . For see Gal 1:6 , for 2Pe 2:2 , , 2Pe 2:7 ; 2Pe 2:18 ; 1Pe 4:3 , and Lightfoot on Gal 5:19 , “A man may be and hide his sin: he does not become until he shocks public decency. In classical Greek the word generally signifies insolence or violence towards another. In the later language the prominent idea is sensuality cf. Polyb. xxxvi. 2, . Thus it has much the same range of meaning as ”. On the meaning of see Robinson, Ephes. p. 221 f. The form used elsewhere in the N.T., except in Act 24:27 .

. So 2Pe 2:1 , . On the denial of God and Christ see 1Jn 2:22 , , , Tit 1:16 , , , Mat 10:33 , , , Mat 26:70 (Peter’s denial). Such denial is one of the sins noticed in the book of Enoch, xxxviii. 2: “When the Righteous One shall appear where will be the dwelling of the sinners and where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits? “ Ib. xli. 2, xlv. 2, xlvi. 7, xlviii. 10: “They will fall and not rise again for they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed”.

Two questions have been raised as to the meaning of the text, (1) is . to be understood of the Son, (2) what is the force of ? The objection to understanding of our Lord is that in every other passage in the N.T., where occurs, except in 2Pe 2:1 (on which see n.), it is spoken of God the Father; that, this being the case, it is difficult to understand how Christ can be called . It seems to me a forced explanation to say that the phrase has reference only to other earthly masters. No Jew could use it in this connexion without thinking of the one Master in heaven. Again is elsewhere used of the Father only, as in Joh 5:44 , , Joh 17:3 , Rom 16:27 , , 1Ti 1:17 , . , 1Ti 6:15-16 , . , and by Jude himself, below 25, . ., . Wetst. quotes several passages in which Josephus speaks of God as . On the other hand, the phrase, so taken seems to contradict the general rule that, where two nouns, denoting attributes, are joined by , if the article is prefixed to the first noun only, the second noun will then be an attribute of the same subject. In the present case, however, the second noun ( ) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article, see Winer, pp. 147 163. A similar doubtful case is found in Tit 2:13 , . . , where also I should take to refer to the Father. Other examples of the same kind are Eph 5:5 , (where Alf. notes “We cannot safely say here that the same Person is intended by . . merely on account of the omission of the art.; for (1) any introduction of such a prediction regarding Christ would here be manifestly out of place, (2) is so frequently anarthrous that it is not safe to ground any such inference on its use here),” 2Th 1:12 , ; 1Ti 5:21 ( cf. 2Ti 4:1 ), , which Chrysostom explains ; 2Pe 1:1 ; 2Pe 1:4 , where see my n. The denial of the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ may be implicit, shown by their coquet, though not asserted in word, as in Tit 1:16 ; but it is more naturally taken as explicit, as in 1Jn 2:22 , where Westcott notes that a common gnostic theory was that “ ‘the Aeon Christ’ descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism and left Him before His passion. Those who held such a doctrine denied the union of the divine and human in one Person and this denial involves the loss of the Father, not only because the ideas of sonship and fatherhood are correlative, but because it is only in the Son that we have the [full] revelation of God as Father.” The phrase might also refer to the heresy attributed to Cerinthus by Hippolytus ( Haer. vii. 33, x. 21) , and Irenus Haer. i. 26. See Introduction on Early Heresies in the large edition.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

there are. Omit.

certain. App-124.

men. App-123.

crept in unawares. Greek. pareisduo. Only here. Compare Gal 1:2, Gal 1:4. 2Pe 2:1.

before . . . ordained = before written. Greek. prographo. See Rom 15:4.

condemnation. App-177.

ungodly men = impious. Greek. asebes. See Rom 4:5, and compare App-128.

turning = changing. Greek. metatithemi. See Act 7:16.

grace. App-184.

into. App-104.

lasciviousness. Greek. aselgeia. See Rom 13:13.

denying. See 2Pe 2:1.

Lord. App-98.

God. The texts omit.

Lord. App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

4.] For there crept in (aor. explaining the arising of the occasion of his thus writing. On , cf. 2Pe 2:1, , and note: also Gal 2:4, where we have both and . Secrecy, and lack of legitimate introduction, are plainly expressed in this word. Crept in, viz. into the Christian church) certain men (le mot a quelque chose de mprisant, comme dans Gal 2:12, Arnaud. And so, it may be observed, has in this connexion) (men) who have been of old written down in prophecy (by the . these persons are again brought up and designated; q. d. namely, the very men who &c. has been variously interpreted. The prep. may have two meanings: either 1) that of time, previously, as in Gal 3:1, where the various meanings of the word are discussed: 2) that of publicity, openly, taking to proscribe as the sense of the word. But it is against this latter that this sense is never found in the N. T.: and that proscribed, if taken in its usual meaning, will not admit of following it. Wolfs interpretation, qui dudum sunt accusati in hoc judicium, lets go the proscripti altogether. There can be little doubt then that we must keep to its temporal sense, as indeed do c., Thl. (but understanding the reference wrongly: , . …), and most recent Commentators. Then, thus understanding it, to what time and fact are we to refer such designation of them? Clearly not to Gods eternal purpose, in this place, from the term , which, as Huther remarks, is never used of that purpose, but points to some fact in time. And if so, then the previous writing down of these men can only point to the O. T. prophecies. In that case there is a pregnant construction, of old fore-described (and destined). What special description of them is intended, might be difficult to say were it not for the quotation below Jud 1:14 from the prophecy of Enoch. The warnings contained in the historical facts adduced below may also be meant. It may be observed that the ultra-prdestinarians, Beza and Calvin, find, as we might expect, strong defence for their views in their interpretation here. Beza indeed gathers from this place, hoc ternum Dei decretum non modo eventum rerum, sed ipsas imprimis personas comprehendere) to this judgment (what judgment, or rather result of judgment? Judicium de quo mox, as Bengel: the sentence which St. Jude has in his mind and proceeds in the following verses to unfold. , as so often, though not = , yet gets the condemnatory meaning from the character of the context), impious, changing the grace of our God ( , the gift of grace, the state of salvation, in which our sins are forgiven us and we are admitted into the freedom of Gods children. , drawing closer the bond of Gods true children to Him and one another, and thus producing greater abhorrence of those who have thus abused His grace) into lasciviousness (the words might mean, perverting the grace of our God in the direction of, for the purpose of, lasciviousness: and so De Wette: but it is against this, that in reff. is simply to change, not to pervert: and we therefore must understand, as above, that they made the state of grace and Christian liberty into a state of (moral) licence and wantonness: as Bede, hanc ejus gratiam transferunt in luxuriam, qui nunc tanto licentius et liberius peccant quanto minus se vident asperitate legis de admissis facinoribus examinari), and denying (see 2Pe 2:1) the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ (in 2Pe 2:1 is used of Christ: which circumstance might tempt us to refer it to Christ here also: and so Bengel, De Wette, Stier, al. But probability seems to weigh on the other side. In every other place (see reff.) is used of God: 2) the addition seems to bind this meaning to it here: (3) 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. For these reasons I must agree 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).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Jud 1:4. , have crept in unawares) , under, by the way.- , who were of old forewritten for this judgment) For their coming was predicted, Jud 1:17; and that they should undergo the judgment, which he is about to describe, is evident from the examples of punishments inflicted upon others of similar impurity-examples which have long been written. There is no reference to predestination; respecting which, however, there is a similar expression, , they who are written unto life, Isa 4:3; but he is speaking of the prediction of Scripture. , of old, in the time of Enoch, Jud 1:14; and since he himself only spake it, and did not also write it, it must be regarded as an abbreviated expression, in this sense: They were long ago foretold by Enoch, and afterwards marked out by the written word. Therefore comp. the word , ungodly, with Jud 1:15. The meaning of is as far as relates to. , this, is forcibly demonstrative; the apostle already, as it were, seeing their punishment. The language used by Enoch comprises all the ungodly of the beginning and of the end of the world. The disposition and the punishment of all are alike.-, of us) not of the ungodly.-, the grace) of the Gospel.- , the only Master) Sir 18:33, in the Complutensian Edition: , .- , and Lord) St Jude shows that the impiety of those whom he censures, makes attacks both against God and against Christ: , who alter the grace of our GOD as relates to [into] lasciviousness, and deny our only Master, and Lord JESUS CHRIST. This was not observed by those who inserted after .[1] A passage exactly parallel occurs, 2Pe 2:1, , denying the, Lord that bought them.-, denying) Let the portentous fictions (heresies) of the ancient heretics, as mentioned by the fathers, be thoroughly weighed.

[1] ABC Vulg. and most Versions omit . Rec. Text inserts it, with more recent Uncial MSS., and with the two Syr. Versions alone of very ancient authorities.-E.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Reciprocal: Exo 9:16 – deed Lev 15:8 – General Lev 15:31 – Thus shall Job 31:28 – for Pro 19:21 – nevertheless Isa 30:33 – ordained Isa 37:26 – how I Eze 5:6 – she hath Dan 11:34 – cleave Mat 7:15 – which Mat 12:44 – he findeth Mat 13:47 – and gathered Mat 18:7 – for Mat 24:11 – General Joh 6:71 – for Act 2:23 – being Act 20:30 – of your Rom 3:8 – Let us Rom 5:6 – ungodly Rom 6:1 – Shall Rom 6:15 – shall we Rom 9:22 – endured 2Co 2:17 – which 2Co 11:3 – so 2Co 11:13 – false 2Co 11:15 – whose 2Co 11:29 – and I burn Gal 1:7 – pervert Gal 2:4 – unawares Gal 5:13 – only Phi 3:2 – evil Phi 3:19 – end 1Th 5:9 – not 2Th 2:12 – they 1Ti 4:1 – the latter 1Ti 5:15 – General 2Ti 2:12 – if we deny 2Ti 3:4 – lovers of God 2Ti 3:6 – of this Tit 1:16 – profess Jam 2:19 – General 1Pe 2:8 – whereunto 1Pe 2:16 – and 1Pe 4:3 – lasciviousness 2Pe 2:1 – denying 2Pe 2:3 – whose 2Pe 2:10 – in the 2Pe 3:16 – unto their own 1Jo 2:22 – he that Rev 2:13 – denied Rev 3:8 – and hast not

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jud 1:4. Crept in unawares means they came in some underhanded manner to get advantage over the disciples. Ordained is from a Greek word that means they were predicted in old times, that they would do the things that would bring this condemnation. They misused the grace (favor) of God by making it seem to support their lasciviousness (filthy desires). It would be expected that such characters would deny Jesus Christ because he would condemn their wicked deeds.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jud 1:4. For there are certain men; unknown, insignificant men, or otherwise not worth describing; but when their true character was seen, it was plain that they belonged to a class long before described in many an Old Testament passage; notably in the prophecy of Enoch (Jud 1:14), probably in the punishment of the Israelites (Jud 1:5), of the rebel angels (Jud 1:6), and in letters of fire on the plain of Sodom and Gomorrha (Jud 1:7).

Crept in is probably sufficient; unawares is even less accurate, suggesting that there may have been neglect upon the part of the Church, whereas it is the stealthy movement of those who have entered that is rebuked. They came in by a side door; not that they crept in from without, being really no members of the Church; but only that they came in as members, and yet had in fact, as was now clear, sentiments and habits foreign to those of a Christian community, and ought never, therefore, to have entered it at all. (See the same phrases in 2Pe 2:1, and Gal 2:4.)

before of old ordained is peculiarly unhappy. There is no predestination in the words, but only Scripture prophecy, or public information. The word is used in the New Testament four times (or five if we retain the common text in Rom 15:4), and is rendered twice written before. In Gal 3:1 and here it probably means, from the custom of writing matters of general interest on tablets for public information.

have been evidently set forth, or written of as subject to this condemnation or judgment; proscribed or designated, other renderings, is too strong. Their character is further defined; they are ungodly men, with whom Gods holiness is no ground of reverence, nor His law their guide, who, having broken loose from His authority, show their ungodliness in all they do, and especially in two forms; they pervert or turn the grace of God, the proffered gift of God in the free forgiveness of sin, with all its helps to holiness and blessedness, into lasciviousness; just as liberty is turned into licentiousness (Gal 5:13); just as of old the removal, one after another, of the plagues with which Pharaoh was visited ended in renewed hardness of heart and in repeated sin. The more gracious God is, the more wanton they become.

and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. The word God goes out by preponderating authority. If it were retained, the description would imply that they denied both the Father and the Son. Even without God it is a possible meaning (the only Master and the Lord Jesus Christ), as it is a possible meaning in Tit 2:13; but the more accurate and the more natural meaning of the Greek refers both terms to Christ; and on comparing the passage with 2Pe 2:1, where these men are said to deny the Master that bought them, the conclusion seems inevitable that both terms are to be applied to Christ, though everywhere in the New Testament, except here and in 2 Peter, the word Master is applied to God the Father. Christ is here called their one absolute Lord and Owner, not in contrast with the other persons in the Godhead, but with foreign lords who once had dominion over them. They are called godless, indeed, chiefly because they pervert the grace that is in Christ, and deny the claims of Him who first created and then redeemed them.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here we have a reason of the foregoing exhortation assigned, why we should contend so earnestly for the Christian faith once delivered by Christ to his apostles, because there were crept, by little and little, such seducers into the church, as would endeavour to adulterate and corrupt it: There are certain men crept in unawares.

Note here, That corruptors and corruptions creep secretly and gradually into the church; and heretics do not broach all their errors and false doctrines at once; vain then and frivolous is the question which the church of Rome asks us, When did their innovations and false doctrines come first into the church? They crept in, and that unawares; it is enough for us that we find them there, though we assign not the time when, not the manner how, they did come in.

Observe next, The character and description which our apostle gives of these seducers crept in amongst them.

1. He tells us they were men fore-ordained to condemnation; mark, not fore-ordained to seduction to sin, but to condemnation for sin; the word rendered fore-ordained, signifies before written, or before prophesied of, by Enoch and others, that they would by their great sins and impieties fall into that condemnation which God hath ordained as a just reward to their transgressions; God never ordaineth or decreeth any man’s sin, but he decreeth and foretelleth their condemnation for sin.

2. He styles them wicked, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness; pointing at the Nicolaitans, Gnostics, and other impure heretics, that sprang from Simon Magus, who made the doctrine of the free grace of God, discovered in the gospel, a cloak for their looseness and lasciviousness. Errors in doctrine are usually accompanied with corruption in manners, as being most suitable to man’s corrupt, vile nature, and will be sure never to want followers.

3. He charges them with denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, Jesus Christ our only Master, God, and Lord, called by St. Peter, the Lord that bought them: lessening the dignity of his person, and invalidating what they could the merit of his death and sufferings.

Learn hence, 1. That Jesus Christ, the Master of the world, the Lord of the church, is truly God; he is called the great God, and the mighty God, to show that he is not a God inferior to, but equal to, the Father, and that by nature, not by office.

Learn, 2. That it is an horrid impiety to deny our Lord Jesus Christ, to deny him in either of his natures, or in any of his offices; to deny him either in opinion, or in practice, is a sin that carries a prodigious appearance with it: They denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Apostates Described

Jude explained that false teachers were the cause of his writing. Woods says the idea of “crept in unnoticed” is that of entering in by the side door, without revealing their motive of leading the saints astray. This description might be compared with Gal 2:4 ; 2Ti 3:6 and 2Pe 2:1-2 . These false teachers were the ones who were written of before, probably in the Old Testament. What was written concerning them is described as being “marked out for this condemnation” ( Jud 1:4 ).

The false teachers were likewise described as “ungodly men,” which seems to indicate they were not pious or reverent. These were the same type of men that reaped their reward at the time of the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ( 2Pe 2:5-6 ). Being of such a nature, they turned the grace of God, which is salvation ( Eph 2:8-9 ), into a support of gross fleshly indulgence. Thayer says “licentiousness” is unbridled lust, excess and shamelessness. As Woods points out, there is similarity between these men and those in 2Pe 2:18-19 .

There is some question as to the meaning of the words “only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” The A. S. V. puts “the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ” in a footnote as a possible rendering. Some think it refers to the Father and the Son. The title “Master” is applied to Christ in 2Pe 2:1 , and the characterizing word “only” is used more properly of God, as it is in verse 25 of this book. (See The Pulpit Commentary for a fuller discussion.)

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Jdg 1:4. For there are certain men (see the margin) crept in unawares Insinuating themselves into peoples affections by their plausible pretences, and leavening them by degrees with their errors. The ungodly teachers here described seem to have been the Nicolaitans, mentioned Rev 2:6, whose doctrine Christ himself declared to be hateful to him. Perhaps the Gnostics and Carpocratians, the successors of the Nicolaitans, were also meant. The Nicolaitans are said to have maintained that marriage was a human invention, not binding on Christians; on which account they had women in common, and practised unnatural lusts, as is plain from Judes account of them. And they hardened themselves against the fear of punishment in a future state for these crimes, by extolling the goodness and mercy of God, which they thus perverted to lasciviousness. Who were of old ordained Or rather, as the original expression,

, literally signifies, written, or described, before to this condemnation Even as early as Enoch, by whom it was foretold, that by their wilful sins they would incur this condemnation. Jude means, that these wicked teachers had their punishment before written, that is, foretold, in what is written concerning the wicked Sodomites and rebellious Israelites, whose crimes were the same with theirs; and whose punishment was not only a proof of Gods resolution to punish sinners, but an example of the punishment which he would inflict on them. Others think that in the word , written before, there is an allusion to the ancient custom of writing laws on tables, which were hung up in public places, that the people might know the punishment annexed to the breaking of the laws. If this is the allusion, the apostles meaning will be, that the wicked teachers, of whom he is speaking, were, by the divine law, condemned to severe punishment from the beginning. Turning the grace of our God Revealed in the gospel; into lasciviousness Into an occasion of more abandoned wickedness, even to countenance their lewd and filthy practices. It seems these ungodly men interpreted the doctrine of justification by faith, in such a manner as to free believers from all obligation to obey the law of God, and taught that they might commit the worst actions without being liable to punishment, if they possessed faith; by which they meant the mere speculative belief and outward profession of the gospel. Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ See on 2Pe 2:1. The original words, , may be translated various ways, all equally literal: 1st, And denying the only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. According to this translation, one person only is spoken of here, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is called the only Lord God. 2d, Denying both the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. According to this translation, two persons are distinctly spoken of, namely, the one Lord God, or God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ his Song of Solomon 3 d, And denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. This, which is the translation in our English Bible, and which, in sense, is not different from the second rendering, I have adopted, says Macknight, not only because, according to it, two persons are spoken of as denied, namely, the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, but because it represents Judes sentiment as precisely the same with Johns 1st epist. 1Jn 2:22, He is the antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son. By declaring that those ungodly teachers denied both the Father and the Son, the apostle showed to what a pitch of impiety they had proceeded.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1:4 {2} For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, {3} ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2) It is by God’s providence and not by chance, that many wicked men creep into the Church.

(3) He condemns this first in them, that they take opportunity or occasion to wax wanton, by the grace of God: which cannot be, but the chief empire of Christ must be cancelled, in that such men give themselves up to Satan, whom they call Libertines.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

"Certain persons" stands in contrast to the "saints" (Jud 1:3). These people had "wormed their way in" (NEB) to the churches (cf. 2Pe 2:1).

The verb "crept in" (Gr. pareisedusan), ". . . indicates a secret, stealthy, and subtle insinuation of something evil into a society or a situation." [Note: William Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude, p. 211.]

". . . not only is the local community troubled by importations of an alien creed, but it seems that the heretics themselves have invaded the church, bringing their doctrines with them." [Note: E. M. Sidebottom, James, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 83. Cf. Pentecost, p. 920.]

"They slipped in secretly (Jud 1:4; cf. Gal 2:4) as itinerant preachers, a common part of first-century religious life (cf. Act 13:15; 2Jn 1:7-11; Didache 11.1-12; 13.1-7). Or they arose within the community itself and later quietly brought in heretical teachings from outside (2Pe 2:1; cf. Act 20:29-30; Rom 16:17-18)." [Note: Buist M. Fanning, "A Theology of Peter and Jude," in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 468.]

These people were tares among the wheat (cf. Mat 13:24-25; Mat 13:38-39).

"Jude’s opponents are a group of itinerant charismatics who have arrived in the church(es) to which he writes. Everything else Jude tells us about them is related to their antinomianism, which is the target of his attack. They reject all moral authority, whether that of the law of Moses (Mat 13:8-10) or that of Christ himself (Mat 13:4; Mat 13:8), even though they claim to be followers of Christ. . . .

"In line with their rejection of moral authority, they indulge in immoral behavior, especially sexual misconduct (Mat 13:6-8; Mat 13:10); in this they may be deliberately flouting accepted standards of Jewish morality and conforming to the permissiveness of pagan society." [Note: Bauckham, p. 11.]

This writer meant that the false teachers were charismatics in the general sense of that word: they possessed great powers of charm or influence. He did not mean that they believed in the charismatic gifts of the Spirit necessarily.

Probably God had marked these opponents previously for condemnation in the sense that He knew their sin long ago and would punish them in the future for it. "This condemnation" refers to the sure punishment that lay ahead of them for their sin (cf. Mat 7:15; Mar 13:22; Act 20:29-30; 2 Peter 2).

Jude’s original readers could see the ungodly character of these people in two specific activities. They used the liberty from the Law of Moses that Christians enjoy as an opportunity for sensual indulgence and debauchery (i.e., antinomianism). Gnostics were guilty of this, and their influence seems to be in evidence here as well as elsewhere throughout this epistle. [Note: Green, p. 162.] However others have disputed this inference. [Note: E.g., Michael Desjardins, "The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More About the ’Godly’ Than the ’Ungodly’?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (June 1987):93-95.] Second, they denied God and Jesus Christ, evidently by distorting the truth that Scripture reveals (cf. 1Jn 2:22-23; Tit 1:16). In view of the Greek grammatical construction of this verse, "Master" seems to refer to God and "Lord" to Jesus Christ. [Note: See J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, p. 252; J. B. Mayor, "The General Epistle of Jude," in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 5:257; and Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:531.] However, many scholars believe that Jude had Jesus Christ in view in both of these titles. [Note: E.g., Hiebert, Second Peter . . ., p. 226; George Lawrence Lawlor, Translation and Exposition of the Epistle of Jude, p. 60, footnote 57; and Bigg, p. 327.]

"Although they claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, Jude says that by rejecting his moral demands they are in fact disowning him as their Master and repudiating his authority as Lord." [Note: Bauckham, p. 41.]

Doctrinal deviation often accompanies and often justifies ethical and moral sin.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles