Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh,…. Which may be literally understood, either of the Jewish doctors, who pretended to be interpreters of dreams, as R. Akiba, R. Lazar, and others n; or of the false teachers in the apostle’s time, and of their filthy dreams, and nocturnal pollutions in them; which sense the Arabic and Ethiopic versions confirm; the former rendering the words thus, “so these retiring in the time of sleep, defile their own flesh”; and the latter thus, “and likewise these, who in their own sleep, pollute their own flesh”; as also of their pretensions to divine assistance and intelligence by dreams; and likewise may be figuratively understood of them; for false doctrines are dreams, and the teachers of them dreamers, Jer 23:25, as are all those doctrines of men that oppose the trinity of persons in the Godhead; that contradict the deity and sonship of Christ; that depreciate any of his offices; that lessen the glory of the person and grace of the Spirit; that cry up the purity, power, and righteousness of human nature, and are contrary to the free grace of God. These arise from the darkness of the understanding, and a spirit of slumber upon them; are the fictions of their own brain, and of their roving imagination; are illusory and deceitful, and are in themselves vanities, and like dreams pass away. And the dreamers of these dreams may be said to “defile the flesh”; since they appear to follow and walk after the dictates of corrupt nature; and because by their unclean practices, mentioned in the preceding verse, they defile the flesh, that is, the body: all sin is of a defiling nature, and all men are defiled with it; but these were notoriously so; and often so it is, that unclean practices follow upon erroneous principles.

Despise dominion; either the government of the world by God, denying or speaking evil of his providence; the Ethiopic version renders it, “they deny their own God”, either his being, or rather his providence; or the dominion and kingly power of Christ, to which they cared not to be subject; or rather civil magistracy, which they despised, as supposing it to be inconsistent with their Christian liberty, and rejected it as being a restraint on their lusts; choosing rather anarchy and confusion, that they might do as they pleased, though magistracy is God’s ordinance, and magistrates are God’s representatives:

and speak evil of dignities; or “glories”; the Arabic version reads, “the God of glory”: this is to be understood either of angels, those glorious creatures, called thrones, dominions, c. or ecclesiastical governors, who are set in the first and highest place in the church, and are the glory of the churches or else civil magistrates, as before, who are the higher powers, and sit in high places of honour and grandeur. False teachers are injurious to themselves, disturbers of churches, and pernicious to civil government.

n T. Hieros. Maaser Sheni, fol. 55. 2, 3.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

      8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.   9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.   10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.   11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.   12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;   13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.   14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

      The apostle here exhibits a charge against deceivers who were now seducing the disciples of Christ from the profession and practice of his holy religion. He calls them filthy dreamers, forasmuch as delusion is a dream, and the beginning of, and inlet to, all manner of filthiness. Note, Sin is filthiness; it renders men odious and vile in the sight of the most holy God, and makes them (sooner or later, as penitent or as punished to extremity and without resource) vile in their own eyes, and in a while they become vile in the eyes of all about them. These filthy dreamers dream themselves into a fool’s paradise on earth, and into a real hell at last: let their character, course, and end, be our seasonable and sufficient warning; like sins will produce like punishments and miseries. Here,

      I. The character of these deceivers is described.

      1. They defile the flesh. The flesh or body is the immediate seat, and often the irritating occasion, of many horrid pollutions; yet these, though done in and against the body, do greatly defile and grievously maim and wound the soul. Fleshly lusts do war against the soul, 1 Pet. ii. 11; and in 2 Cor. vii. 1 we read of filthiness of flesh and spirit, each of which, though of different kinds, defiles the whole man.

      2. They despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, are of a disturbed mind and a seditious spirit, forgetting that the powers that be are ordained of God, Rom. xiii. 1. God requires us to speak evil of no man (Tit. iii. 2.); but it is a great aggravation of the sin of evil-speaking when what we say is pointed at magistrates, men whom God has set in authority over us, by blaspheming or speaking evil of whom we blaspheme God himself. Or if we understand it, as some do, with respect to religion, which ought to have the dominion in this lower world, such evil-speakers despise the dominion of conscience, make a jest of it, and would banish it out of the world; and as for the word of God, the rule of conscience, they despise it. The revelations of the divine will go for little with them; they are a rule of faith and manners, but not till they have explained them, and imposed their sense of them upon all about them. Or, as others account for the sense of this passage, the people of God, truly and specially so, are the dignities here spoken of or referred to, according to that of the psalmist, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm, Ps. cv. 15. They speak evil, c. Religion and its serious professors have been always and every where evil spoken of. Though there is nothing in religion but what is very good, and deserves our highest regards, both as it is perfective of our natures and as it is subservient to our truest and highest interests yet this sect, as its enemies are pleased to call it, is every where spoken against, Acts xxviii. 22.

      On this occasion the apostle brings in Michael the archangel, c., &lti>v. 9. Interpreters are at a loss what is here meant by the body of Moses. Some think that the devil contended that Moses might have a public and honourable funeral, that the place where he was interred might be generally known, hoping thereby to draw the Jews, so naturally prone thereto, to a new and fresh instance of idolatry. Dr. Scott thinks that by the body of Moses we are to understand the Jewish church, whose destruction the devil strove and contended for, as the Christian church is called the body of Christ in the New-Testament style. Others bring other interpretations, which I will not here trouble the reader with. Though this contest was mightily eager and earnest, and Michael was victorious in the issue, yet he would not bring a railing accusation against the devil himself; he knew a good cause needed no such weapons to be employed in its defence. It is said, he durst not bring, c. Why durst he not? Not that he was afraid of the devil, but he believed God would be offended if, in such a dispute, he went that way to work he thought it below him to engage in a trial of skill with the great enemy of God and man which of them should out-scold or out-rail the other: a memorandum to all disputants, never to bring railing accusations into their disputes. Truth needs no supports from falsehood or scurrility. Some say, Michael would not bring a railing accusation against the devil as knowing beforehand that he would be too hard for him at that weapon. Some think the apostle refers here to the remarkable passage we have, Num. xx. 7-14. Satan would have represented Moses under disadvantageous colours, which he, good man, had at that time, and upon that occasion, given but too much handle for. Now Michael, according to this account, stands up in defence of Moses, and, in the zeal of an upright and bold spirit, says to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee. He would not stand disputing with the devil, nor enter into a particular debate about the merits of that special cause. He knew Moses was his fellow-servant, a favourite of God, and he would not patiently suffer him to be insulted, no, not by the prince of devils; but in a just indignation cries out, The Lord rebuke thee: like that of our Lord himself (Matt. iv. 10), Get thee hence, Satan. Moses was a dignity, a magistrate, one beloved and preferred by the great God; and the archangel thought it insufferable that such a one should be so treated by a vile apostate spirit, of how high an order soever. So the lesson hence is that we ought to stand up in defence of those whom God owns, how severe soever Satan and his instruments may be in their censures of them and their conduct. Those who censure (in particular) upright magistrates, upon every slip in their behaviour, may expect to hear, The Lord rebuke thee; and divine rebukes are harder to be borne than careless sinners now think for.

      3. They speak evil of the things which they know not, c., &lti>v. 10. Observe, Those who speak evil of religion and godliness speak evil of the things which they know not; for, if they had known them, they would have spoken well of them, for nothing but good and excellent can be truly said of religion, and it is sad that any thing different or opposite should ever be justly said of any of its professors. A religious life is the most safe, happy, comfortable, and honourable life that is. Observe, further, Men are most apt to speak evil of those persons and things that they know least of. How many had never suffered by slanderous tongues if they had been better known! On the other hand, retirement screens some even from just censure. But what they know naturally, c. It is hard, if not impossible, to find any obstinate enemies to the Christian religion, who do not in their stated course live in open or secret contradiction to the very principles of natural religion: this many think hard and uncharitable but I am afraid it will appear too true in the day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God. The apostle likens such to brute beasts, though they often think and boast themselves, if not as the wisest, yet at least as the wittiest part of mankind. In those things they corrupt themselves; that is, in the plainest and most natural and necessary things, things that lie most open and obvious to natural reason and conscience; even in those things they corrupt, debase, and defile themselves: the fault, whatever it is, lies not in their understanding or apprehensions, but in their depraved wills and disordered appetites and affections; they could and might have acted better, but then they must have offered violence to those vile affections which they obstinately chose rather to gratify than to mortify.

      4. In v. 11 the apostle represents them as followers of Cain, and in Jud 1:12; Jud 1:13, as atheistical and profane people, who thought little, and perhaps believed not much, of God or a future world–as greedy and covetous, who, so they could but gain present worldly advantages, cared not what came next–rebels against God and man, who, like Core, ran into attempts in which they must assuredly perish, as he did. Of such the apostle further says, (1.) These are spots in your feasts of charity–the agapai or love-feasts, so much spoken of by the ancients. They happened, by whatever means or mischance, to be admitted among them, but were spots in them, defiled and defiling. Observe, It is a great reproach, though unjust and accidental, to religion, when those who profess it, and join in the most solemn institution of it, are in heart and life unsuitable and even contrary to it: These are spots. Yet how common in all Christian societies here on earth, the very best not excepted, are such blemishes! The more is the pity. The Lord remedy it in his due time and way, not in men’s blind and rigorous way of plucking up the wheat with the tares. But in the heaven we are waiting, hoping, and preparing for, there is none of this mad work, there are none of these disorderly doings. (2.) When they feast with you, they feed themselves without fear. Arrant gluttons, no doubt, there were; such as minded only the gratifying of their appetites with the daintiness and abundance of their fare; they had no regard to Solomon’s caution, Prov. xxiii. 2. Note, In common eating and drinking a holy fear is necessary, much more in feasting, though we may sometimes be more easily and insensibly overcome at a common meal than at a feast; for, in the case supposed, we are less upon our guard, and sometimes, at least to some persons, the plenty of a feast is its own antidote, as to others it may prove a dangerous snare. (3.) Clouds they are without water, which promise rain in time of drought, but perform nothing of what they promise. Such is the case of formal professors, who at first setting out promise much, like early-blossoming trees in a forward spring, but in conclusion bring forth little or no fruit.–Carried about of winds, light and empty, easily driven about this way or that, as the wind happens to set; such are empty, ungrounded professors, and easy prey to every seducer. It is amazing to hear many talk so confidently of so many things of which they know little or nothing, and yet have not the wisdom and humility to discern and be sensible how little they know. How happy would our world be if men either knew more or practically knew how little they know. (4.) Trees whose fruit withereth, c. Trees they are, for they are planted in the Lord’s vineyard, yet fruitless ones. Observe, Those whose fruit withereth may be justly said to be without fruit. As good never a whit as never the better. It is a sad thing when men seem to begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh, which is almost as common a case as it is an awful one. The text speaks of such as were twice dead. One would think to be once dead were enough we none of us, till grace renew us to a higher degree than ordinary, love to think of dying once, though this is appointed for us all. What then is the meaning of this being twice dead? They had been once dead in their natural, fallen, lapsed state; but they seemed to recover, and, as a man in a swoon, to be brought to life again, when they took upon them the profession of the Christian religion. But now they are dead again by the evident proofs they have given of their hypocrisy: whatever they seemed, they had nothing truly vital in them.–Plucked up by the roots, as we commonly serve dead trees, from which we expect no more fruit. They are dead, dead, dead; why cumber they the ground? Away with them to the fire. (5.) Raging waves of the sea, boisterous, noisy, and clamorous; full of talk and turbulency, but with little (if any) sense or meaning: Foaming out their own shame, creating much uneasiness to men of better sense and calmer tempers, which yet will in the end turn to their own greater shame and just reproach. The psalmist’s prayer ought always to be that of every honest and good man, “Let integrity and uprightness preserve me (Ps. xxv. 21), and, if it will not, let me be unpreserved.” If honesty signify little now, knavery will signify much less, and that in a very little while. Raging waves are a terror to sailing passengers; but, when they have got to port, the waves are forgotten as if no longer in being: their noise and terror are for ever ended. (6.) Wandering stars, planets that are erratic in their motions, keep not that steady regular course which the fixed ones do, but shift their stations, that one has sometimes much ado to know where to find them. This allusion carries in it a very lively emblem of false teachers, who are sometimes here and sometimes there, so that one knows not where nor how to fix them. In the main things, at least, one would think something should be fixed and steady; and this might be without infallibility, or any pretensions to it in us poor mortals. In religion and politics, the great subjects of present debate, surely there are certain stamina in which wise and good, honest and disinterested, men might agree, without throwing the populace into the utmost anguish and distress of mind, or blowing up their passions into rage and fury, without letting them know what they say or whereof they affirm.

      II. The doom of this wicked people is declared: To whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. False teachers are to expect the worst of punishments in this and a future world: not every one who teaches by mistake any thing that is not exactly true (for who then, in any public assembly, durst open a Bible to teach others, unless he thought himself equal or superior to the angels of God in heaven?) but every one who prevaricates, dissembles, would lead others into by-paths and side-ways, that he may have opportunity to make a gain or prey of them, or (in the apostle’s phrase) to make merchandize of them, 2 Pet. ii. 3. But enough of this. As for the blackness of darkness for ever, I shall only say that this terrible expression, with all the horror it imports, belongs to false teachers, truly, not slanderously so called, who corrupt the word of God, and betray the souls of men. If this will not make both ministers and people cautious, I know not what will.

      Of the prophecy of Enoch, (Jud 1:14; Jud 1:15) we have no mention made in any other part or place of scripture; yet now it is scripture that there was such prophecy. One plain text of scripture is proof enough of any one point that we are required to believe, especially when relating to a matter of fact; but in matters of faith, necessary saving faith, God has not seen fit (blessed be his holy name he has not) to try us so far. There is no fundamental article of the Christian religion, truly so called, which is not inculcated over and over in the New Testament, by which we may know on what the Holy Ghost does, and consequently on what we ought, to lay the greatest stress. Some say that this prophecy of Enoch was preserved by tradition in the Jewish church; others that the apostle Jude was immediately inspired with the notice of it: be this as it may, it is certain that there was such a prophecy of ancient date, of long standing, and universally received in the Old-Testament church; and it is a main point of our New-Testament creed. Observe, 1. Christ’s coming to judgment was prophesied of as early as the middle of the patriarchal age, and was therefore even then a received and acknowledged truth.–The Lord cometh with his holy myriads, including both angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. What a glorious time will that be, when Christ shall come with ten thousand of these! And we are told for what great and awful ends and purposes he will come so accompanied and attended, namely, to execute judgment upon all. 2. It was spoken of then, so long ago, as a thing just at hand: “Behold, the Lord cometh; he is just a coming, he will be upon you before you are aware, and, unless you be very cautious and diligent, before you are provided to meet him comfortably.” He cometh, (1.) To execute judgment upon the wicked. (2.) To convince them. Observe, Christ will condemn none without precedent, trial, and conviction, such conviction as shall at least silence themselves. They shall have no excuse or apology to make that they either can or dare then stand by. Then every mouth shall be stopped, the Judge and his sentence shall be (by all the impartial) approved and applauded, and even the guilty condemned criminals shall be speechless, though at present they want not bold and specious pleas, which they vent with all assurance and confidence; and yet it is certain that the mock-trials of prisoners in the jail among themselves and the real trial at the bar before the proper judge soon appear to be very different things.

      I cannot pass v. 15 without taking notice how often, and how emphatically, the word ungodly is repeated in it, no fewer than four times: ungodly men, ungodly sinners, ungodly deeds, and, as to the manner, ungodly committed. Godly or ungodly signifies little with men now-a-days, unless it be to scoff at and deride even the very expressions; but it is not so in the language of the Holy Ghost. Note, Omissions, as well as commissions, must be accounted for in the day of judgment. Note, further, Hard speeches of one another, especially if ill-grounded, will most certainly come into account at the judgment of the great day. Let us all take care in time. “If thou,” says one of our good old puritans, “smite (a miscalled heretic, or) a schismatic, and God find a real saint bleeding, look thou to it, how thou wilt answer it.” It may be too late to say before the angel that it was an error, Eccl. v. 6. I only here allude to that expression of the divinely inspired writer.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Yet (). See Joh 4:27. In spite of these warnings.

In like manner (). Like the cities of the plain.

These also ( ). The false teachers of verse 4.

In their dreamings (). Present middle participle of , to dream (from dream, Ac 2:17, from and , in sleep), in Aristotle, Hippocrates, Plutarch, papyri, LXX (Joe 2:28), here only in N.T. Cf. Col 2:18.

Defile (). Present active indicative of , old verb, to stain, with sin (Tit 1:15) as here. 2Pe 2:10 has .

Set at nought (). Present active indicative of , to annul. Both (dominion) and (dignities) occur in 2Pe 2:10, which see for discussion.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Yet [] . Not rendered by A. V., but expressing that though they have these fearful examples before them, yet they persist in their sin. Dominion – dignities [ – ] . It is not easy to determine the exact meaning of these two terms. Kuriothv, dominion, occurs in three other passages, Eph 1:21; Col 1:16; 2Pe 2:10. In the first two, and probably in the third, the reference is to angelic dignities. Some explain this passage and the one in Peter, of evil angels. In Colossians the term is used with thrones, principalities, and powers, with reference to the orders of the celestial hierarchy as conceived by Gnostic teachers, and with a view to exalt Christ above all these. Glories or dignities is used in this concrete sense only here and at 2Pe 2:10.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

PART IV. APOSTATE TEACHERS EXPOSED (Verses 8-19)

1) “Likewise also these filthy dreamers” (Greek enupniazomenoi) these Sodomites, lesbianites, and fornicators, who continually day-dream and night dream of filthy practices.

2) “Defile the flesh” – live the way they day dream and night-dream, degenerate lives (Greek miainousin) to defile, stain, tinge or color they live the checkered life of a speckled bird.

3) “Despise dominion” they take lightly, deride, criticize and snipe at divinely appointed leadership -they attempt to set aside, ignore (Greek athetousin) church discipline and order.

4) “And speak evil of dignities” – they blaspheme,(Greek blasphemousin) blab evil things against teachers, officers, deacons, and pastors, those holding church elected positions of leadership. Having crept in under camouflage, as apostles of Satan, making

themselves to appear as angels of light; these serpentine zealots set about in pious talk, raising questions against the church elected leaders and program of worship. Such do not respect our Lord’s rule for greatness, Mat 20:25-28.

a) Satan entered Eden under false pretense, Gen 3:1-5

b) Satan tempted Jesus under false pretense, Mat 4:3-11

c) Jesus warned of these religious cannibals- Mat 7:15-23.

d) Paul warned of them Act 20:28-31; 2Co 11:13-15

e) Peter described them 2Pe 2:1-3

f) John exposed them, 3Jn 1:1; 3Jn 1:9-10 as desirous of preeminence in the church.

ILLUSTRATIONS:

1) DECEIT

Deceivers are the most dangerous members of society. They trifle with the best affections of our nature, and violate the most sacred obligations.

– Crabbe

2) HYPOCRISY

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul, producing holy witness, is like a villain with a smiling cheek; a goodly apple rotten at the heart.

– Shakespeare

3) Straight Mouths and Crooked Hearts

There are many words which cause Bible translators difficulty when translating them into the languages of tribes and nations. There is one word, however, which presents no difficulty to the translators, and that word is hypocrisy. The hypocrite is found everywhere. The Indian tribes in Latin America have various ways to denote the -hypocrite. They designate him as “a man with two faces,” “a man with two hearts,” “a man with two kinds of talk,” “a two-headed man,” “a forked-tongue person,” “a two-sided man,” and “a man with a straight mouth and a crooked heart.”

-W. B. K.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

8. Likewise also these. This comparison is not to be pressed too strictly, as though he compared these whom he mentions in all things to be Sodomites, or to the fallen angels, or to the unbelieving people. He only shews that they were vessels of wrath appointed to destruction, and that they could not escape the hand of God, but that he would some time or another make them examples of his vengeance. For his design was to terrify the godly to whom he was writing, lest they should entangle themselves in their society.

But he begins here more clearly to describe these impostors. And he says first, that they polluted their flesh as it were by dreaming, by which words he denotes their stupid effrontery, as though he had said that they abandoned themselves to all kinds of filth, which the most wicked abhor, except sleep took away shame and also consciousness. It is then a metaphorical mode of speaking, by which he intimates that they were so dull and stupid as to give up themselves without any shame to every kind of baseness. (195)

There is a contrast to be noticed, when he says that they defiled or polluted the flesh, that is, that they degraded what was less excellent, and that yet they despised as disgraceful what is deemed especially excellent among mankind.

It appears from the second clause that they were seditious men, who sought anarchy, that, being loosed from the fear of the laws, they might sin more freely. But these two things are nearly always connected, that they who abandon themselves to iniquity, do also wish to abolish all order. Though, indeed, their chief object is to be free from every yoke, it yet appears from the words of Jude that they were wont to speak insolently and reproachfully of magistrates, like the fanatics of the present day, who not only grumble because they are restrained by the authority of magistrates, but furiously declaim against all government, and say that the power of the sword is profane and opposed to godliness; in short, they superciliously reject from the Church of God all kings and all magistrates. Dignities or glories are orders or ranks eminent in power or honor.

(195) The “dreaming” is connected with the three things which follow, defiling the flesh, despising government and slandering dignities. Hence the idea conveyed by our version, in which filthy is introduced, is by no means correct. Allusion seems to be made to the pretensions of false prophets in former times. See Jer 23:25. The false prophets taught what they pretended to see in dreams, as dreams as well as visions were vouchsafed to true prophets. See Joe 2:28. It is not improbable that those referred to here pretended that they had received what they taught., by supernatural dreams; for how otherwise could they deceive others, especially respecting errors so gross and palpable as are here mentioned? The eighth verse is, as to its construction, connected with the seventh. The ὡς and the ὁμοίως are corresponding terms; “as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc., are set forth for an example, in like manner also these would be.” This is the drift of the passage; —

8. “In like manner, indeed, shall also these dreamers be that is, an example of divine vengeance, who defile the flesh, despise dominion, and revile dignities.”

Peter threatened them with “swift destruction,” 2Pe 2:1. There are here three things mentioned which apply to the three instances previously adduced: like the Sodomites they defiled the flesh; like the fallen angels they despised dominion; and like the Israelites in the wilderness, they reviled dignities; for it was especially by opposing the power given to Moses that the Israelites manifested their unbelief. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(8-10) Application of these three instances to the libertines who are now provoking God.
(8) Likewise also.Rather, Yet in like manner: i.e., in spite of these warnings. These ungodly men were like the unbelievers in the wilderness in denying Christ and scoffing at His promises; they were like the impure angels in leaving that constitution which is in heaven (Php. 3:20) for the base pleasures of earth; they were like the people of Sodom in seeking even these base pleasures by unnatural courses.

These filthy dreamers.We must add also. Filthy is not in the original Greek, nor in any previous English version, but is supplied from the next clause; not rightly, for dreamers goes with all three clauses, not with defile the flesh only. This being admitted, a number of painful interpretations are at once excluded. These dreamers also means these ungodly men, who are deep in the slumber of sin (see Note on Rom. 13:11), as well as the three classes of sinners just mentioned. Excepting in Act. 2:17, which is a quotation from Joe. 2:28, the word for dreamer occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but is found in the LXX. version of Isa. 56:10, of dogs that dream and make a noise in their sleep. St. Jude perhaps has this passage in his mind. (See below, second Note on Jud. 1:12.) Dreamers may perhaps refer to the empty speculations of these men.

Defile the flesh.Like the inhabitants of the cities of the plain. Some of the earliest forms of Gnosticism, on its antinomian as distinct from its ascetic side, exhibit the licentiousness inveighed against here; e.g., the Simonians, Nicolaitanes, Cainites, Carpocratians.

Despise dominion.Like the impure angels. Insert and before despise. The dominion, or lordship, is that of Almighty God. Set aside, or reject (Mar. 7:9; Luk. 7:30; Joh. 12:48), would be better than despise, to mark the difference between this and 2Pe. 2:10.

Speak evil of dignities.Like the murmurers in the wilderness. By dignities, or glories, are meant unseen powers worthy of reverence. The Greek word is rare in the New Testament; only here, 2Pe. 2:10, and 1Pe. 1:11. Earthly dignities, whether ecclesiastical or civil, are not included. (Comp. the doctrine of Menander, Irenus, I. xxiii. 5.)

(9) Yet Michael the archangel.These libertines allow themselves to use language against celestial beings which even an archangel did not venture to use against Satan. In the Old Testament Michael appears as the guardian angel of the people of Israel, Dan. 10:21; Dan. 12:1; in the New Testament he is mentioned only here and in Rev. 12:7. In the Book of Enoch his meekness is spoken of; he is the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael, Enoch 40:8.

He disputed about the body of Moses.To be understood quite literally: to make the body of Moses into a metaphor for the people of Israel, or the Mosaic law, is most unnatural. This passage is the only evidence extant of any such incident or tradition. The nearest approach to it is the Targum of Jonathan on Deu. 34:6, which says that Michael was the appointed guardian of Moses grave. According to Origen (De Princip. III. ii. 1) the source of it is a book called the Ascension, or Assumption of Moses. Evidently it is something supposed to be well known to those whom St. Jude is addressing, and it appears to be given as a fact which he believes, though we cannot be sure of this. In any case it does not follow that we are to believe in it as an historical fact. Reverent, and therefore cautious, theories of inspiration need not exclude the possibility of an unhistorical incident being cited as an illustration or a warning. St. Paul makes use of the Jewish legend of the rock following the Israelites in the wilderness as an illustration (1Co. 10:4). The strange question, What did the devil want with the body of Moses? has been asked, and answered in more ways than one:(1) to make it an object of idolatry, as the Israelites would be very likely to worship it; (2) to keep it as his own, as that of a murderer, because Moses killed the Egyptian (Exo. 2:12).

Durst not . . .Out of respect to Satans original angelic nature. (Comp. 1Co. 6:1.)

A railing accusation.More literally, a sentence savouring of evil-speaking. Wiclif, doom; Tyndale and Cranmer, sentence; Rheims, judgment. Michael brought no sentence against the devil, but left all judgment to God.

The Lord rebuke thee.The same rebuke is administered to Satan by the angel of Jehovah, when Satan appears as the adversary of Joshua the high priest, the restorer of the temple and of the daily sacrifice, and one of the Old Testament types of Christ (Zec. 3:2). It is probable that the tradition here given by St. Jude is derived from this passage in Zechariah, or from a source common to both. We have another reminiscence of Zec. 3:2 in Jud. 1:23.

(10) But these . . .In strong contrast to the scrupulous reverence of the archangel. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Those things which they know not.The dignities of Jud. 1:8. This shows that unseen spiritual powers are there meant: these men would know earthly rulers. It is on the unseen that they show their irreverence.

What they know naturally.The means of gratifying their desires. The two halves of the verse are in emphatic contrast. What they do not know, and cannot know, they abuse by gross irreverence: what they know, and cannot help knowing, they abuse by gross licentiousness. If this Epistle is prior to 2 Peter it is strange that the author of the latter should have neglected so telling an antithesis, and should (from a literary point of view) have so spoiled the passage by his mode of adaptation (2Pe. 2:12). If 2 Peter is prior there is nothing strange in St. Jude improving upon the mode of expression. The word for know is not the same in both clauses. The word used in which they know not is the most general and common word of the kind in Greek, expressing mere perception, and occurring about three hundred times in the New Testament; that used in what they know naturally is more definite, and expresses practical experience productive of skill and science; it occurs fourteen times in the New Testament, mostly in the Acts. (Comp. Paul I know, Act. 19:15.)

They corrupt themselves.Or, perhaps, they work their own ruin. Note the tense; not future, but present. The corruption, or ruin, is not a judgment hanging over them; it is already going on.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

8. Dreamers So called for the visionary speculations out of which their profligate and fantastic systems were formed. These visions produced vices of the three following classes.

Defile the flesh Yielding themselves, under a pseudo-religious sanction, to gluttony, debauchery, and unnatural lust.

Despise Literally, abolish, make nothing of, dominion, lordship, authority, human or divine, civil or ecclesiastical.

Speak evil of Literally, blaspheme.

Dignities Literally, glories. The sensualist’s brutal eyes degrade every noble thing they look upon. Every thing glorious they would bring down to their own level. And especially when they would sanctify a flagitious practice with a demoralized theory, all high and low are reversed and subverted. Legitimate lordship they repudiate, and all glories and sanctities of earth and heaven they flaunt and blaspheme with terms and phrases borrowed from their own obscene vocabulary.

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

‘Yet in a similar way these also in their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities.’

Note his reference to their ‘dreamings’. This may simply be indicating their folly in the same way as we say, ‘dream on’. Or it may have in mind the taking of drugs in order to produce a sensual and ecstatic state. Or it may refer to claims that they made to have special dreams, citing Joe 2:28; Act 1:17. The point is that he is emphasising that their ideas are unreal. Whichever it is it causes them to:

‘Defile the flesh.’ By their behaviour and their manner of living they show that they despise the flesh, but thereby they are making themselves unacceptable to a holy God, and even wrecking the physical condition of their own lives. Many live like that today, even in the church.

‘Set at nought dominion.’ The word ‘dominion’ occurs also in Eph 1:21; Col 1:16; and 2Pe 2:10, where it refers to heavenly powers. The word is kuriotes meaning ‘lordship’ (compare kurios = lord). Here it may have God in mind, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Devil (it is in the singular, and plural dignities are separately mentioned), or indeed all authority combined, including God, the Lord, the Devil, heavenly rulers and the secular state, for they see themselves as enjoying total liberty. The idea may be that they are contemptuous of all because of what they feel to be their superior spirituality. Many today also reject God’s full authority.

‘Rail at (revile, blaspheme, speak evil of) dignities (glorious beings).’ The idea may have been in order to demonstrate their superior power over them. Possibly the word ‘glorious beings’ refers to ‘good’ angels, the idea being that they dismiss them as irrelevant or of no use to them. They claim that they do not need ministering angels (Heb 1:14).

This brings out their whole attitude of mind. Because they see themselves as on a high spiritual plain they see everything else as beneath them, and treat everything accordingly.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A Further Indication Of The Heresy In Which The Godless Men Were Involved ( Jud 1:8-10 ).

Jude now describes in a threefold way the folly of the ‘ungodly persons’, and points out that their attitude conflicts with the known realities. They defile themselves by sin, they set God (or the Devil) at nought, and they speak contrary to things that even angels do not dare to get involved with.

He then cites an example from the apocalyptic work the Assumption of Moses, (but without citing it as Scripture), in order to demonstrate how careful even Michael the Archangel was in dealing with the Devil. We can compare how Paul similarly cites heathen philosophers in the same way without accepting all that they teach (Act 17:23; Act 17:28). He gleans the truth out of them.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The character of the seducing teachers:

v. 8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

v. 9. Yet Michael, the archangel, when, contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee!

v. 10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not; but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

v. 11. Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

v. 12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear; clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

v. 13. raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

The apostle now applies the lesson of the examples quoted by him to the false teachers: Now, in spite of all, these visionaries also defile the flesh, repudiate lordship, blaspheme the dignities. The false teachers might and should have known these warning examples; but they calmly disregard them, and follow similar courses. They are dreamers, visionaries, whose own imagination deceives them; in their delusion and blindness they take the unreal for the real. They become guilty of the most outrageous crimes of sensuality, not only in thoughts and desires, but also in deeds. At the same time they repudiate, reject, the heavenly lordship; they refuse to accept and bow down under the rule of God; and they blaspheme the dignities, the angelic orders, and everything that has majesty and glory before God.

This insolence is all the greater since, as the apostle writes: But Michael, the archangel, when, disputing with the devil, he debated concerning the body of Moses, did not dare to bring upon him a condemnation for his blasphemy, but said. The Lord rebuke thee! An angel of the very highest order, Michael, had been commissioned by God to bury Moses, Deu 34:5-6, and was challenged by the prince of the evil angels who wanted the body for himself. It was during this debate that Michael, although fully in the right, yet abstained from pronouncing the sentence of condemnation upon the powerful fallen angel. Instead of that he placed vengeance and punishment into the hands of God by calling out over Satan that the Lord should rebuke him.

The insolence of the false teachers, by contrast, has no bounds: But these men, on the one hand, scoff at what they do not know, and, on the other hand, what they do understand by instinct, like the irrational beasts, in these things they are ruined. That is a characteristic attitude of the false teachers. The truth they do not understand, their carnal mind is blind to all true wisdom; and therefore they scoff and jeer at it, Col 2:18. On the other hand, they do understand some things by nature, by instinct, just like irrational beasts, like animals, namely, the things pertaining to their fleshly lusts. But their understanding, instead of teaching them the proper care of themselves, is forgotten in their senseless lust, and they ruin themselves, body and soul, 2Pe 2:12.

The apostle now pictures the fate of the false teachers: Woe to them! For the road of Cain they walked, and in the error of Balaam they rushed headlong for reward, and in the rebellion of Korah they perished. The apostle describes the punishment as having already taken place, so certain it is, so surely the woes will come upon these deceivers. Just as the entire conduct of Cain, even to the murder of his brother Abel, grew out of a cursed selfishness; just as Balaam permitted himself to be blinded against better knowledge by the bribe of Balak, king of the Moabites, Num 25:1-3; Num 31:16, for the sake of filthy lucre; just as Korah rebelled against the Lord in refusing obedience to the Lord’s representative: so these false teachers of whom Jude here speaks are guilty of the same transgressions, selfishness, avarice, disobedience. Note the climax in the arrangement of the examples.

The apostle’s righteous indignation now breaks forth in his description of the false teachers: These are hidden rocks in your love-feasts, carousing together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water driven along by winds, autumnal trees, unfruitful, twice dead, uprooted; wild billows of the sea spewing up their own disgraces, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved eternally. Just as the hidden or sunken rocks endanger every boat that comes into their neighborhood, so these deceivers are a constant menace to the believers because they skillfully hide their true nature. They attend the love-feasts of the Christians, such as they celebrated in connection with the Holy Communion, not, however, in the spirit of Christian fellowship, but for the purpose of carousing, without the slightest regard for the reverence which propriety demands, of gorging as true servants of their own bodies. They are like fog-clouds that are driven in from the ocean, but never yield one drop of fructifying moisture. They are like trees in the late autumn, devoid of foliage and fruit and thus doubly dead, uprooted at that. They are like the waves and billows of the great sea, whose very foam brings out the impurities that are carried along by the ocean currents. They are like shooting stars, which rush from their sphere into darkness, never to be seen again. All these comparisons, jumbled as they purposely are, apply to the false teachers. They came into the assemblies of the Christians and were unduly prominent in everything they did. They presumed to be pastors, but they lived off the people whom they swindled, and waxed fat off the spoils, Eze 34:8. In great, swelling words of vanity they promised new wisdom; however, they produced nothing but the old foolishness, Col 2:8; 1Ti 4:7; 2Ti 2:16-18. They professed to lead the real Christian life, but they showed nothing but hypocrisy. They were altogether carnal, without one spark of true, spiritual life. Their end would therefore be everlasting disgrace in the darkness of hell. The same description applies to false teachers in our days and to the end of time.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Jud 1:8. Likewise also Nevertheless these dreamers also, &c.] The connection is, “Though there are so many examples upon record of God’s just displeasure against the wicked; nevertheless, these dreamers also, in like manner with the ancient inhabitants of Sodom, defile the flesh with their lewd practices, despise government, and rail against the persons who are exalted to power and dignity.” Vicious persons are represented in scripture as being asleep, Rom 13:11. 1Co 15:34. 1Th 5:6 and here, as dreaming idle dreams; turning the grace of God into licentiousness, and promising themselves and their disciples security and lasting happiness in those courses which the gospel condemned. St. Jude had given three instances of God’s inflicting punishment upon his rational creatures for their sin; namely, those of the Israelites, wicked angels, and Sodomites: the crimes were different; ingratitude and reproachful complaints against their supreme Governor, in the Israelites; pride in the fallen angels; and sensuality in the Sodomites. Here he seems to charge all those crimes upon these corrupt Christians; first, sensuality, then pride, and lastly, reproachful insults and reflections upon the higher powers. Instead of these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, Heylin has it, These men, indulging their filthy imaginations, pollute themselves.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Jud 1:8 . Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 2Pe 2:10 .

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

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

] refers back to , Jud 1:4 .

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

] not their flesh, but generally the flesh , both their own and that of others: the thought refers back to Jud 1:7 : , etc.

, ] announces a new side of their sinful nature. As this verse is in evident connection of thought with Jud 1:10 , where the words refer back to ., so and can only be here such things as suit the words . It is thus incorrect to understand them of political powers (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and others), or of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius [26] ), or of human authorities generally, the two words being either taken as designations of concrete persons, or one of them as a pure abstraction: Arnaud: par il faut entendre l’autorit en gnral et par les dignits quelconques, les hommes mritant, par leur position, le respect et la considration.

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

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

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

[26] Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking that by may also be understood , and by also ; on 2Pe 2:10 he observes: , , .

[27] Also in 2Pe 2:10 , is separated from by the intervening .

REMARK.

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

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

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

8 ff.] Designation of these evil men as following the same destructive courses . In like manner nevertheless (i. e. notwithstanding these warning examples) these men in their dreams ( , by the construction of the sentence which proceeds with , . , , must belong not to the first member alone, but to all. This necessity precludes the whole class of meanings represented by “de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur:” explained by Calv., “est metaphorica loquutio, qua significat, ipsos esse tam hebetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad omnem turpitudinem se prostituant.” And those being got rid of, and a fortiori the interpretation given by Bretschneider, “falsis oraculis decepti, vel falsa oracula edentes” (see reff.), we have but this left, that the word should represent that state of dreaming in the sleep of sin, out of which men are so often called on to awake to righteousness and the light of Christ: so (in Huther) Horneius: “tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi lethargo quodam sopiti non tantum impure vivant, sed etiam qu non norunt tam audacter vituperent:” and Arnaud (ibid.), “cependant ceux-ci, comme des gens qui agissent sans savoir ce qu’ils font, comme s’ils rvaient, pour ainsi dire, ”) defile the flesh (by unnatural lusts, as in Jud 1:7 . , generally: not, ‘ their flesh,’ but our common flesh), and despise lordship and speak evil of glories (of what sort? Calv., Beza, Grot., Leclerc, Wolf, Semler, al., understand those of kings and Csars: c. alt., Hammond, include ecclesiastical rulers and Apostles. But to neither of these meanings can Jud 1:9-10 be fitted: and it becomes therefore necessary to understand the words of celestial lordships and dignities: probably in both cases those of the holy angels. So De Wette: similarly Huther, but understanding of God, and of the angels. It is against this last view, that , in reff. Eph. Col., is used of angels. Philo de Monarchia i. 6, vol. ii. p. 218, says, . The ancient interpretations were curious, as given in the Oxf. Catena: . : again, , , , : and so Severus also, and c. alt.):

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Jud 1:8 . . Notwithstanding these warnings the libertines go on in similar courses.

Compare Act 2:17 (a quotation from Joe 2:28 ), , of those that see visions: and so Spitta (holding that Jude copied from 2 Peter), would render it here, prefixing the article to make it correspond with the and of 2Pe 2:1 . Those who take the opposite view ( viz. that 2 Peter was copied from Jude) will see nothing to justify the article. The word is used by Isa 56:10 in connexion with the words , (see Jud 1:10 below), , which Delitsch explains “instead of watching and praying to see divine revelations for the benefit of the people, they are lovers of ease talkers in their sleep.

Bengel explains “Hominum mere naturalium indoles graphice admodum descripta est. Somnians multa videre, audire, etc. sibi videtur.” And so Chase “they live in an unreal world of their own inflated imaginations,” comparing the conjectural reading of Col 2:18 , . This accords with Jud 1:10 : in their delusion and their blindness they take the real for the unreal, and the unreal for the real. The verb is used both in the active and middle by Aristotle, Somm. i. 1, , ; Probl. 30, 14, 2, , , , cf. Artem. Oneir , i. 1. Some interpret of polluting dreams ( cf. Lev 15 ); but the word is evidently intended to have a larger scope, covering not merely but and . We must also interpret here by the of Jud 1:4 , the and of Jud 1:7 . This wide sense appears in Tit 1:15 , , .

, . On first reading one is inclined to take the words and simply as abstractions. The result of indulgence in degrading lusts is the loss of reverence, the inability to recognise true greatness and due degrees of honour. This would agree with the description of the libertines as sharing in the of Korah, as , as uttering hard speeches against God. When we examine however the use of the word and the patristic comments, and when we consider the reference to the archangel’s behaviour towards Satan, and the further explanation in Jud 1:10 , where the of Jud 1:8 is represented by , and the phrase , by , we seem to require a more pointed and definite meaning, not simply “majesty,” but “the divine majesty,” not simply “dignities,” but “the angelic orders”. Cf. 2Pe 2:10 , Eph 1:21 (having raised him from the dead and set him on his right hand) , Col 1:16 , , , , where Lightfoot considers that the words are intended to be taken in their widest sense, including bad and good angels, as well as earthly dignities. In our text, however, it would seem that the word should be understood as expressing the attribute of the true , cf. Didache , iv. 1 (honour him who speaks the word of God), , , , Herm. Sim , Jud 1:6 ; Jud 1:1 , , . The verb has God or Christ for its object in Luk 10:16 , Joh 12:48 , 1Th 4:8 , etc. We have then to consider how it can be said that the libertines ( ) “despise authority” in like manner to the above-mentioned offenders. For the former we may refer to Jud 1:4 , , for the latter to the contempt shown by the Israelites towards the commandments of God. So the desertion of their appointed station and abode by the angels showed their disregard for the divine ordinance, and the behaviour of the men of Sodom combined with the vilest lusts an impious irreverence towards God’s representatives, the angels (Gen 19:5 ). Cf. Joseph. Ant. i. 11. 2, , and Test. Aser. 7, where the sin of Sodom is expressly stated to have been their behaviour towards the angels, .

. Cf. 2Pe 2:10 , . The only other passage in the N.T. in which the plural occurs is 1Pe 1:11 , where the sense is different. Dr. Bigg compares Exo 15:11 , , ; ; , . Clement’s interpretation of this and the preceding clause is as follows: ( Adumbr. 1008) “dominationem spernunt, hoc est solum dominum qui vere dominus noster est, Jesus Christus majestatem blasphemant, hoc est angelos”. The word in the singular is used for the Shekinah, see my note on Jas 2:1 . This suggests that Clement may be right in supposing the plural to be used for the angels, who are, as it were, separate rays of that glory. Compare Philo’s use of the name for the angels as contrasted with the divine . In Philo, Monarch , ii. p. 18 the divine , is said to consist of the host of angels, . See Test. Jud 1:25 , , , , also Luk 9:26 , where it is said that “the Son of Man will come in His own glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels”. [790] Ewald, Hist. Isr. tr. vol. viii. p. 142, explains of the true Deity, whom they practically deny by their dual God; as the angels, whom they blaspheme by supposing that they had created the world in opposition to the will of the true God, whereas Michael himself submitted everything to Him. This last clause would then be an appendage to the preceding, with special reference to the case of the Sodomites ( cf. Joh 13:20 ). There may also be some allusion to the teaching or practice of the libertines. If we compare the mysterious reference in 1Co 11:10 , , which is explained by Tertullian ( De Virg. Vel. 7) as spoken of the fallen angels mentioned by Jude, “propter angelos, scilicet quos legimus a Deo et caelo excidisse ob concupiscentiam feminarum,” we might suppose the , of which the libertines were guilty, to consist in a denial or non-recognition of the presence of good angels in their worship, or of the possibility of their own becoming ; or they may have scoffed at the warnings against the assaults of the devil, or even at the very idea of “spiritual wickedness in high places”. So understood, it prepares us for the strange story of the next verse.

[790] There is much said of the glory of the angels in Asc. Isaiae , pp. 47, 49 f ad. Charles.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jud 1:8-13

8Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. 9But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. 11Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. 12These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

Jud 1:8 “Yet in the same way” The false teachers of Jude’s day had similarities to the rebellious ones of old. The exact nature of the similarity is not specified.

“these” This is Jude’s way of referring to the false teachers who had invaded the church (cf. Jud 1:8; Jud 1:10; Jud 1:12; Jud 1:14; Jud 1:16; Jud 1:19).

“also by dreaming” This term is used of OT false prophets (cf. Deu 13:1-5; Jer 23:25-32), those who claimed special revelations from God (cf. Col 2:18).

“defile the flesh” This is the metaphorical use of the term “stain.” There was obviously an amoral aspect to their teachings and/or lifestyles (cf. Tit 1:15). All of these OT examples involved some type of sexual sin (cf. 2Ti 3:1 ff; 2 Peter 2).

“reject authority and revile angelic majesties” There are three characteristics of “these”:

1. “defile the flesh”

2. “reject authority” (NASB, NKJV, NRSV)

“despise God’s authority” (TEV)

“disregard Authority” (NJB)

3. “revile angelic majesty” (NASB)

“speak evil of dignitaries” (NKJV)

“slander the glorious ones” (NRSV)

“insult the glorious beings above” (TEV)

“abuse the Glories as well” (NJB)

It is obvious the first has to do with sexual sins, but what of the second and third? The second designation, “reject authority,” has been interpreted at least two ways:

1. the Greek term for “authority” is kuriotta, which is related to the term “Lord” (kurios), therefore some link this rejection (although the verbals are different) to the denial of Jesus in Jud 1:4 (or God the Father)

2. the Greek term for “authority” is kuriotta, which is related to kuriots, used in 2Pe 2:10 (cf. Eph 1:21; Col 1:16) to refer to angels

This context seems to be referring to angels, #Song of Solomon 2 fits best.

The third designation uses an OT term “glory” (kabod), which was used of God (cf. Jud 1:24-25; 2Pe 1:3; 2Pe 1:17; 2Pe 3:18) and all things connected to God, especially in heaven or the life to come. In this instance Jude is picking up on the inter-biblical expansion of this OT concept to refer to angelic beings, beings of power and authority.

This might even refer to the rejection of the OT Law because the Jews believed that angels served as mediators for YHWH giving the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai (cf. Act 7:35).

This point of the context is the out-of-bounds lifestyle of “these” false teachers in the area of morality and authority.

Jud 1:9 “Michael” His Hebrew name means “who is like God” (cf. Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1). He is Israel’s guardian angel. In the Septuagint text of Deu 32:8 all nations have an angel. In I Enoch 20 Michael is listed as one of the seven archangels. In the DSS Michael is the angel of light opposed to Belial (Satan), the angel of darkness (NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 452).

“archangel” This term is only used in the NT here and in 1Th 4:16. In the OT it refers to a national angel (cf. Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1). There are apparently many levels of angelic authority (cf. Rom 8:38-39; Eph 4:21; Col 1:16), but they are never discussed in detail or defined in the Scriptures. Be careful of curiosity, ambiguous texts, and modern novels.

“when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses” This relates to Moses’ death and burial on Mt. Nebo (cf. Deu 34:6). The issue (according to Jewish tradition, not Scripture) involves Moses’ body, which Satan claimed because he had sinned by killing the Egyptian (cf. Exo 2:12). Apparently Michael had been sent by YHWH to retrieve the physical remains of Moses, but was hindered by an angelic majesty (Satan, cf Job 1-2). This seems to parallel 2Pe 2:11.

“The Lord rebuke you!” This is the same phrase used by the angel of the Lord to Satan in Zec 3:2. It could also be a quote from The Assumption of Moses, a Pharisaical book, probably written in the first century. We only know of it from a later Latin fragment and quotes from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus (also note Deut. Rabbah 10:11). It is used to show the Archangel Michael’s respect for Satan’s position (with the sons of God, Job 2, and at the right hand of the angel of the Lord in Zec 3:1), which was so different from “these” false teachers’ comments about the angelic authorities. The term “Lord” refers to YHWH, while elsewhere in Jude it refers to Jesus.

Jud 1:10 This is a difficult verse to understand. It is paralleled by 2Pe 2:12. Jud 1:10 is a contrast to how Michael handled angelic authority in Jud 1:9.

1. what they do not know, they rail at (or blaspheme)

2. what they know, they know like irrational animals

3. what they know, will destroy (or corrupt) them

Their animal-like instincts for sex, sin, and rebellion (cf. 2Pe 2:12-14) will eventually destroy them (cf. Php 3:19). What irony, that this so-called special knowledge is the very thing that causes their demise (i.e., “the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” cf. Genesis 3).

Jud 1:11 This verse is another illustration of Jude’s use of threes (Cain, Balaam, Korah). It is structured in an OT prophetic pattern of a funeral dirge (cf. Isa 3:9; Isa 3:11; Isa 6:5; Habakkuk 2) or curse oath (cf. Deu 27:15-26). Jesus uses “woe” often in the Gospels (esp. Luke). Their destruction is sure! They allowed their own jealousy, greed, sensuality, and lust for power to destroy them (and their teachings destroyed others, cf. Jas 3:1).

F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 134, tells us that Christian tradition (i.e., Epiphanius) used all three of these examples given as relating to certain Gnostic groups who used these very OT people as role models.

“have gone” The verb poreuomai is used metaphorically several times in this book (and 2 Peter), referring to godless living.

1. Jud 1:11, “they went in the way of Cain”

2. Jud 1:16, “following after. . .”

3. Jud 1:18, “following after. . .”

4. 2Pe 2:10, “indulge” (lit. “go after”)

5. 2Pe 3:3, “following after. . .”

“Cain” The account of Cain’s jealousy of Abel and his murder are recorded in Genesis 4. The rabbis use Cain as an example of a cynical, materialistic unbeliever in the Jerusalem Targum on Gen 4:7 and Pirke Aboth 5:19. Philo used Cain as an example of self-centeredness (Post. C. 38, 233).

“Balaam” The record of Balaam, a prophet of YHWH, is found in Numbers 22-25; Num 31:8; Num 31:16. Balaam is an example of a worldly-minded prophet who led Israel into fertility worship as these false teachers exploited believers to improper sexual activity (cf. 2Pe 2:15).

“Korah” Korah’s sin was rebellion against God’s appointed authority, Aaron and Moses (cf. Num 16:1-35).

Jud 1:12-13 Jude characterizes “these” false teachers as

1. hidden reefs (unseen dangers)

2. clouds without water (promise, but no fulfillment)

3. trees without fruit (promise, but no fulfillment)

4. wild waves (chaos and its debris)

5. wandering stars (metaphor of error and sin)

Numbers 2-5 may reflect I Enoch 2:1-5:4, which describes the orderly working of God’s creation. Jude uses examples of created order that do not fulfill the expected assignment.

SPECIAL TOPIC: APOSTASY (APHISTMI)

NASB”hidden reefs”

NKJV”spots”

NRSV”blemishes”

TEV”dirty spots”

NJB”a dangerous hazard”

The Greek term spilas has two distinct meanings (Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, 2 ed., p. 762).

1. an older one from Greek literature of “hidden reefs” (i.e., unseen, unexpected danger)

2. a later sense of “blemishes,” “stains,” or “spots” (cf. Eph 5:27; Jas 3:6; 2Pe 2:13; Jud 1:23).

Option #1 fits the context best. The NASB and NRSV footnotes have “hidden reefs,” but the word was also used in the NT of “spots” (cf. 2Pe 2:13).

“love feasts” This was the common communal meal of the early church (cf. 1Co 11:17-22). 2Pe 2:13-14 reveals the sexual lust practiced by these false teachers even at the Lord’s Supper and communal meal.

“caring for themselves” This means “shepherding themselves” (cf. Eze 34:2; Eze 34:8-10), driven by passion, not by reason or love for God. This is the essence of sinindependence from God and His love and will for all mankind. God’s love is corporate, for the whole. Fallen mankind’s love is individual; “what’s in it for me?” It is self-directed, self-seeking, self-centered.

“clouds without water. . .autumn trees without fruit” These are metaphors that focus on the promise of something, but without fulfillmentno water, no food! The false teachers made many empty claims (cf. 2Pe 2:17).

“doubly dead” This may be (1) a metaphor of apparent physical life, but in reality, a dead spiritual life; (2) a reference to the second death of Rev 20:14; or (3) both unfruitful and uprooted, thereby doubly dead.

“uprooted” The TEV and NJB combined the last two descriptions as relating to the trees. The NJB has “like autumn trees, barren and uprooted and so twice dead.”

Jud 1:13 “casting up their own shame like foam” This seems to refer to debris left on the shore after a storm (cf. Isa 57:20). Its exact metaphorical meaning in this context is uncertain (cf. Php 3:19).

“wandering stars” This refers to meteors or planets which had no regular orbit like the constellations and, therefore, came to be metaphors for waywardness or lostness. In I Enoch this metaphor relates to seven fallen angels (cf. I Enoch 18-21).

“black darkness” The last descriptive clause of Jud 1:13 may reflect Jud 1:6 (cf. 2Pe 2:17 b), which refers to eternal judgment as “black darkness” (cf. I Enoch 10:4-5; 63:6; Jesus also uses darkness in Mat 8:12; Mat 22:13; Mat 25:30).

“has been reserved forever” Here again Jude uses one of his favorite words, “kept” (cf. tre in Jud 1:1; Jud 1:6; Jud 1:13; Jud 1:21 and phulass in Jud 1:24). It is a perfect passive indicative. The tense and mood imply that God kept them imprisoned in darkness in the past and they remain imprisoned (cf. 2Pe 2:17).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

also these = these also.

dreamers = in their dreamings. Greek. enupniazomai. See Act 2:17.

defile. See Joh 18:28.

despise. Greek. atheteo. See Joh 12:48 (rejecteth).

dominion = lordship. See Eph 1:21. 2Pe 2:10 (government).

speak evil of = blaspheme.

dignities. Literally glories. Compare 2Pe 2:10.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

8 ff.] Designation of these evil men as following the same destructive courses. In like manner nevertheless (i. e. notwithstanding these warning examples) these men in their dreams (, by the construction of the sentence which proceeds with , . , ,-must belong not to the first member alone, but to all. This necessity precludes the whole class of meanings represented by de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur: explained by Calv., est metaphorica loquutio, qua significat, ipsos esse tam hebetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad omnem turpitudinem se prostituant. And those being got rid of, and a fortiori the interpretation given by Bretschneider, falsis oraculis decepti, vel falsa oracula edentes (see reff.),-we have but this left, that the word should represent that state of dreaming in the sleep of sin, out of which men are so often called on to awake to righteousness and the light of Christ: so (in Huther) Horneius: tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi lethargo quodam sopiti non tantum impure vivant, sed etiam qu non norunt tam audacter vituperent: and Arnaud (ibid.), cependant ceux-ci, comme des gens qui agissent sans savoir ce quils font, comme sils rvaient, pour ainsi dire, ) defile the flesh (by unnatural lusts, as in Jud 1:7. , generally: not, their flesh, but our common flesh), and despise lordship and speak evil of glories (of what sort? Calv., Beza, Grot., Leclerc, Wolf, Semler, al., understand those of kings and Csars: c. alt., Hammond, include ecclesiastical rulers and Apostles. But to neither of these meanings can Jud 1:9-10 be fitted: and it becomes therefore necessary to understand the words of celestial lordships and dignities: probably in both cases those of the holy angels. So De Wette: similarly Huther, but understanding of God, and of the angels. It is against this last view, that , in reff. Eph. Col., is used of angels. Philo de Monarchia i. 6, vol. ii. p. 218, says, . The ancient interpretations were curious, as given in the Oxf. Catena: . :-again, , , , : and so Severus also, and c. alt.):

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Jud 1:8. , indeed) A particle setting forth and comparing the impurity of such ungodly men with Sodom, whence the resemblance of punishment mentioned in Jud 1:7 is plainly seen.-) disturbed with impure and confused dreams, and from their dreams conjecturing the future. The words, they know not, Jud 1:10, are equivalent: Isa 56:10-11, Septuagint, – .- , They are ignorant-sleeping, lying down-they cannot understand-they all look to their own way.[2]-, dignities) See 2Pe 2:10, note.

[2] By the one word the character of mere natural men is very graphically described. A man in dreaming seems to himself to be seeing and hearing many things, etc. His lusts are agitated by joy, distress, fear, and the other passions. But he is a stranger to self-control in such a state: but as is an image (phantom) arising out of an image, such is the condition of such men. Hence, though they bring into play all the sinews of reason, they cannot conceive that the sons of light. who are awake and in the daylight, enjoy true liberty.-V. g.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jud 1:8-10

WICKED AND GOOD CONTRASTED

(Jud 1:8-10)

8 Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at naught dominion, and rail at dignities.–Three striking illustrations of the certainty of divine punishment to be inflicted upon those who indulge in gross sin, including Jews, Gentiles, and angels, were presented in the foregoing section. Here, the writer proceeds to apply these examples to the ungodly of his own day; to demonstrate that the conduct of these men as comparable to that of those alluded to in the illustrations presented; and to call attention to the fact that they were, by their conduct, provoking Jehovah to deal with them in similar fashion.

“Yet in like manner” identifies the conduct of these to whom the writer alludes with those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain. “In their dreamings” they (1) defile the flesh, (2) set at naught dominion, and (3) rail at dignities. They lived in a dreamy world of impurity; they defiled the flesh by sins unspeakably vile (cf. Rom 1:18-32); they exhibited contempt for all authority, whether civil or divine; and they did not hesitate to speak evil of men though they occupied high places. (See the comments on 2Pe 2:10.)

9 But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.–Cf. 2Pe 2:2. Michael is first mentioned, in the scrip-tures, in Dan 10:13, and other references to him are in Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; and Rev 12:7. He appears to have been a prince or guardian angel of the Jewish people. He was an “archangel,” a term meaning chief or captain of the angels. In Rev 12:7-9, he is described as the leader of unfallen angels who war with and conquer Satan and his angels. It is affirmed of Michael in this passage that (1) he contended with the devil; (2) the occasion of this contention was with reference to the body of Moses; (3) in the disputation which arose between Michael and the devil on this matter, he refrained from a railing judgment against Satan, (4) being content merely to say, “The Lord rebuke thee.”

When this occurred, the events prompting it, and the effects which followed do not appear either here or elsewhere in the sacred writings. It is, admittedly, the most difficult statement in the entire Epistle, and has given rise to much speculation. Merely to state the views which have been expressed regarding it would require a treatment of the subject far beyond the limits of this commentary. Jewish tradition and Rabinnic literature abound with allusions to such an advent, but such sources are wholly un-reliable in reconstructing the facts in the case.

Jude, an inspired writer, affirmed that the event occurred. It is sufficient for us simply to believe it; it is surely unnecessary for us to vindicate Jude’s veracity by proving that the facts related occurred and are testified to by other writers. The lesson which the author desired to be drawn from his remarks is obvious. The ungodly characters, about whom he was warning his readers, spoke of angelic dignities in a fashion which even an archangel did not dare adopt in speaking to the devil. The argument is an a fortiori one. The meaning is, If one of the highest beings in the angelic world restrained himself from the use of railing judgment against the devil, how much more unjustified was it for these false teachers to disregard the dignity of those against whom they spoke.

10 But these rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed.–“But these,” i.e., the false teachers under consideration, in contrast with the conduct of Michael, do not hesitate to “rail” (speak evil) of matters about which they know nothing, matters wholly outside their sphere of spiritual vision, their only knowledge being their passions, the instinct and impulses which men share with the animal creation. Paul alluded to a similar type of individual whom he described as “dwelling in the things which he bath seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” (Col 2:18.) Those who scorn the higher things of the Spirit and surrender themselves to the appetites of the flesh descend to the level of beasts and forfeit their spiritual standing and their eternal destiny. “In these things,” i.e., in the things of the flesh, “are they destroyed.” That in which they find the greatest pleasure will, at length, become the occasion of their destruction. Cf. 2Pe 2:12, and the comments there. Though these men boasted of their superior knowledge, and alleged it as the ground on which they defended their licentious and lascivious practices, they were actually, and in reality, on the level of brute beasts in their conduct. Their desires became the rule of their lives, and the flesh the source of their gratification. They were wicked, ungodly men, and their destiny determined and sure. Like Cain, Balaam, and Korah, examples offered in the next sec-tion, their error was coupled with disaster and would not long delay its effects.

Commentary on Jud 1:8-10 by E.M. Zerr

Jud 1:8. Filthy dreamers means they had visions of depraved indulgencies which defiled the flesh. Speak evil of dignities is explained at 2Pe 2:10.

Jud 1:9. The reference to Michael is for a contrast on the same principle as 2Pe 2:11. Devil disputed about the body of Moses. All we know about this dispute is what is said here, but we learn from Deu 34:6 that no man knew his burying place; that does not say the devil and the angels did not know. We are not told what was the point in their discussion; the important thing is the mildness of Michael in contrast with the false teachers.

Jud 1:10. This means they act more like beasts than men. (See 2Pe 2:12).

Commentary on Jud 1:8-10 by N.T. Caton

Jud 1:8.-Likewise also these filthy dreamers…

Well may the apostle call these false teachers “filthy dreamers.” Their thoughts, awake or asleep, are impure. Their punishment shall be as sure as that of the Sodomites whom they imitate.

Despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities…

These false teachers go further in their ungodly course. They set at naught and totally disregard all authority, and in their recklessness and temerity rail at and revile those placed in official positions, however closely such may observe the law they are called upon to administer.

Jud 1:9.-Yet Michael the archangel…

That it may plainly appear why you should ignore the false teachers in their attempts to seduce you from the path marked out for your career as Christians, I call to your attention the conduct imposed by the Father of Lights upon one even as mighty as an archangel-even Michael. He dare not bring a railing accusation against the arch-enemy of man, the devil. He was required to leave even a rebuke of this most vile of all beings to the Lord. In the archangel’s contention with the devil over the body of Moses, he simply said, “The Lord rebuke thee.” So you Christians can easily perceive that the course pursued by these false teachers is not from on high. Should you follow such guides, you would be led away from Christ and from his glorious reward surely in store for the faithful.

Jud 1:10.-But these speak evil of those things.

While Michael would not bring a railing accusation even against the devil, these false teachers, pretending to have superior knowledge, speak ill of things concerning which they absolutely know nothing. And as to things pertaining to the flesh-as the appetites and all animal desires, known naturally not only by men, but by brutes-in these respects these false teachers act as though they possessed no more reason than the brute, for herein they debase themselves by their indulgence.

Commentary on Jud 1:8-10 by Donald Fream

Even Michael would not presume to accuse the devil, who was obviously wrong; but these man make accusation in their ignorance while being consumed by their own lusts.

Michael is pictured in the scriptures as an angel having authority and leading the angelic army of God. (See Rev 12:7 and Dan 12:1) In Dan 10:13 he is called one of the chief princes. His fame as an angelic being really excells in the Rabbinical traditions. Here he is given such titles as great high-priest in heaven and great prince and conqueror. The book of Enoch also has many mentions of Michael. There is no cause to even hint that Jude received his ideas about Michael from the book of Enoch or from the Rabbinical traditions. His identity is established in the word of God. Jude no doubt was acquainted with the teachings in Daniel regarding Michael.

Moreover, had there been no teachings in the scripture regarding Michael, let us remember that Jude is an inspired writer who writes as he is moved by the Spirit of God.

God certainly had a message for Jude to deliver, and it comes as no surprise should we discover that Jude contains some information regarding Biblical history or regarding Gods will for us that is not duplicated elsewhere in the Scriptures. A constant search of secular writings to try to determine where Jude received his ideas is unnecessary and possibly even futile when one considers the inspiration of the spirit under which he wrote.

The dispute about the body of Moses is a case in point. No such debate is recorded elsewhere in the Scriptures. Yet we know it happened because it is recorded here. Scholars have searched far and wide in an effort to determine the source of Judes information. Some have concluded that Jude had access to scripture texts that have been lost. Some indicate that there was no such dispute, but that the reference has a figurative explanation wherein the body of Moses represents the Jewish community after captivity. Some say that the apocryphal book The Ascension of Moses at the time contained reference to this dispute, and that Jude received his information from this book. The case is hypothetical, for we do not know that Jude had such a text available to him, and the Ascension of Moses as it is today has no reference to such a dispute.

That the Jews had an enormous amount of traditions regarding the death of Moses is not denied. These traditions do refer to such a controversy, with Michael being the chief contender. Can it be that Jude copied from these traditions?

Because traditions in themselves do not prove truth and certainly are not infallible as authority, we may erroneously assume that no truth could possibly be contained in tradition. Certainly traditions are often a mixture of truth and fable. An inspired writer such as Jude by the inspiration of the Spirit, would be able to distinguish truth from falsehood. The source back of Jude is the Holy Spirit. Whether or not the fact is contained in the Jewish traditions has nothing to do with the establishment of that fact.

What is Judes intention in recording the fact? It is to point out that these unholy apostate teachers bring railing accusations of a nature that even the high angel of God dared not bring against the devil himself! The entire doctrine of the Gnostics was implied accusation against angelic beings and even against Jehovah. They (the Gnostics) had access to knowledge that God had not revealed in the scriptures. Through their ritualism they knew truth that the inspired writers of both the Old and the New Testaments did not have. These false teachers presumed to add to or alter the Word of God.

Unlike these false teachers, Michael (who well knew the judgment the devil deserved) glorified God as the great Judge. He dared not presume to take this judgment from God, or even to share in it as Moses himself did in the wilderness. God alone knows how to punish the wicked without partiality and with complete justice.

What a lesson for us in this! How often are we tempted to both determine the inner thoughts of our fellow man and then to pronounce the judgment? Like Jonah we sit under a bush and pout because judgment does not come in a manner we choose, or at the time we choose, or to the person we choose. We presume to assume that every man who does not have the same understanding of the Word of God that we have is destined to hell, when really we are often at a distance and in the dark as to what the mans understanding and obedient nature really is. And if we really did understand, should we presume to be the author of another mans judgment? Should we presume to be the author of the rebuke (assuming one was due) or should we, like Michael, leave the rebuking to the Lord?

The word used for rebuke here is not the word for reproving another man that he might see his sin. Rather it is a word that means to chide, or censure severely. In love and Christian concern we might bring another man to see his wrong-doing so that he might repent and his soul be saved. (See Jas 5:19-20) But it is not ours to chide or rub it in.

Michael, in his manner of response to the devil, expressed a real confidence in God. He knew that God would bring a just judgment, and he was entirely willing to be submissive to Gods will and content in Gods judgment. Oh, that we would likewise be content and submissive to God; showing great confidence in the work of God, both in the spiritual realm of judgment and in the material realm of Gods care in this life. God is on His throne, and He knows every tear, every heartache and every need of his servants. This is a part of our faith.

Jude, like his brother James, condemns the misuse of the tongue. (Jud 1:8; Jud 1:10-11; Jud 1:15-16) He clearly states they speak evil, and this in a manner feared even by the angels. Yet their evil speaking is in ignorance. They know not what evil they speak, nor of whom they speak it. They do know they rail and that it is sinful. Out of an evil inclination they proceed arrogantly through the darkness. They have turned out the lights lest they see. Their very ignorance is guilt and needs to be forgiven. (Luk 23:34) They hate the light because their intentions are evil. (Joh 3:20)

Their practice is sensual; and like a cow or a horse, they thoroughly know the practices and objects that bring them sensual enjoyment. They follow their natural appetite and live to feed their senses. What they dont know they blaspheme, and what they do know destroys them.

Commentary on Jud 1:8-10 by Burton Coffman

Jud 1:8 –Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at naught dominion, and rail at dignities.

In their dreamings … Any, or all, of a number of things could have been meant by this. “Idle speculations,”[28] impractical and unrealistic thoughts, “certain visions they had received,”[29] divine revelations they claimed to have had, or simply that, “their thoughts, whether awake or asleep, were impure, sensual, evil.”[30] Whatever the exact meaning, all of their activity was directed to a single objective, that of defilement, whether self-pollution, or the corruption of others, or both.

Set at naught dominion … All dominion belongs to God, as stated in the benediction; and the evil teachers rejected God’s authority. Their sins were threefold: they defile, reject, and revile.

Rail at dignities … The New Catholic Bible states that this word dignities “is understood as referring to angels.”[31] There could be a clue in this reference to their speaking evil of angels as to the type of heresy current when Jude wrote. On the surface, it seems incredible, almost, that any person, no matter how evil, would indulge in blasphemous remarks against the holy angels; and yet evil men today speak evil of the Son of God who is higher in glory and power than any angel. The style of evil speaking has changed a bit, but the sin is the same as always. The word Jude used here is also translated “majesties” or “glories”; and the sin is covered by the prohibition, no matter which “glory” is reviled. The theory behind their reviling angels could have been Docetism. “Docetists held all angels in contempt because they supposed angels helped God in creating the material universe, and that they (the angels) were thereby spiritually defiled.”[32]

[28] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 511.

[29] David F. Payne, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 627.

[30] N. T. Caton, op. cit., p. 206.

[31] New Catholic Bible (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1949), New Testament, p. 322.

[32] Albert E. Barnett, op. cit., p. 328.

Jud 1:9 –But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Barclay’s summary of the meaning of this whole verse is excellent: “If the greatest of good angels refused to speak evil of the greatest of evil angels, even in circumstances like that, then surely no human being may speak evil of any angel.”[33]

It is absolutely unnecessary to suppose that Jude was here quoting from Philo, or the apocryphal book of Enoch, or Josephus, or “The Assumption of Moses,” nor any one of half dozen alleged “sources.” The last clause of this verse is a quotation from the Old Testament book of Zec 3:2; and we may be certain that the rest of this verse is just as authentic as the last clause. It is helpful to remember that the writer of this epistle had been reared in the same family with Jesus Christ our Lord, having had more than a quarter of a century of the most intimate association with the Lord, and that such a statement as is found in this verse undoubtedly reflects the Saviour’s own supernatural wisdom. It should not disturb anyone that the kernel of truth mentioned here was endlessly vulgarized and extended in an apocryphal book. See under Jude 1:1:14.

Michael the archangel … If Jude had been thinking of the book of Enoch here, he would certainly have written, “Michael, one of the archangels,” for that book names seven: “Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Saragaej, Gabriel, and Remiel.”[34] The word “archangel” occurs only in this verse and in 1Th 4:16 in the New Testament; and it is quite likely that there is only one archangel, namely, Michael. “There can be properly only one archangel, one chief, or head of all the angelic host.”[35] Other glimpses we have of Michael in the Bible always show him as the head singular of the holy angels, as in Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21, and Dan 12:1, and also in Rev 12:7. Jude’s usage of the term “archangel” is fully in keeping with this view, being certainly opposed to the apocryphal notions of a whole order of archangels. All of the diligence of scholars to find the source of Jude’s letter in the shameful book of Enoch (not even in the Apocryphal section of the Catholic Bible) border very closely upon a denial of his inspiration.

What is indicated in Jude’s words here is that there was conflict between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses; we may surmise (and it is only that) that perhaps Satan wanted to use the body for purposes like the worship of relics in succeeding ages. At any rate, the lesson is, THE archangel did not bring a railing accusation against the devil himself, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee” (Zec 3:2). How strange it is that mortal, weak, ignorant, vile and sinful men would rail against heavenly beings, a thing which the archangel would not do, even though apparently having the right to have done so.

[33] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 221.

[34] Albert E. Barnett, op. cit., p. 329.

[35] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, Vol. VI (London: Carlton and Porter, 1829), p. 952.

Jud 1:10 –But these rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things they are destroyed.

But these rail … Fools rush in where the archangel did not dare to go, human stupidity in such conduct reaching some kind of a summit.

And what they understand naturally … Far from having any superior wisdom, these licentious Gnostics were totally blind to all of the highest knowledge; and the things which they could not help knowing, such as their passions, they used only for the purpose of sinning.

They are destroyed … This may be understood both in the present and the prophetic tenses. People engrossed in sensuality are already destroyed; and that present destruction is likewise the prophecy of eternal ruin as well.

Commentary on Jud 1:8-10 by Gary Hampton

The Apostates in Jude’s Day

In Jud 1:8, Jude showed the false teachers had committed sins similar to those committed by those in the Old Testament examples he had previously given. They had committed sins of the flesh that were of the lowest nature. They showed no respect for authority and it did not bother them to say bad things against people in high positions.

“Michael the archangel,” or “chief,” or “captain” of the angels, is mentioned only in Jud 1:9 and Rev 12:7-9 in the New Testament. He is pictured as the protector of Israel against the world’s pagan powers in Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1. Jude said he was in a discussion over the body of Moses. While we know nothing more of this discussion, it can easily be seen Jude was making a point about this high angelic being and the fact that he would not even say an evil word against the devil. There is quite a contrast between this action and those of the false teachers.

Not only did the false teachers speak evil, they even spoke against things about which they did not know or understand. The only things they understood concerned the fulfillment of physical appetites. They did that to the point of their own destruction. They could only look forward to woe because they were like Cain. He followed his own desires instead of walking the path of obedient service (Gen 4:7). Balaam simply did his works to gain monetary profit (Num 22:5-7). Korah rebelled against Moses’ and God’s authority in the wilderness in his lusty hunger for power (Num 16:1-35). These men are examples of the type of attitude the false teachers must have portrayed (Jud 1:10-11).

Commentary on Jud 1:8-10 by David Hersey

Jud 1:8 –Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

The ASV renders the first of this verse as “In like manner”. We are here told that the depravity of the false teachers who had privily come into their midst were guilty of the same sorts of sin that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were. Their sin was rooted in sexual misconduct. This aligns perfectly with teachings of the Gnostics and later the Nicolaitans. There can be little doubt that Jude’s urgency in writing this epistle was for the purpose of refuting their influence in the church. In like manner to those of Sodom and Gomorrah, these dreamers defile the flesh.

Jude referred to them as dreamers. This means they were either living in a dreamy world of impurity or they were claiming to have access to divine revelation through their dreams. The latter seems to make the most sense in view that Jude twice used a word that carries the meaning that the faith had been once for all time delivered and that the Christians knew God’s revealed truth once for all time. Jude seemed to be making it a point to demonstrate that there was no more divine revelation in regards to the doctrine of Christ and that they had already received all they needed and there was not going to be any more. They had all they were going to get, they knew what they needed to know and anything additional to the body of knowledge they had regarding Christianity was to be rejected utterly.

Jud 1:8 –“reject authority”

Similar to the angels who sinned, these false teachers had no respect for authority of God. And this is amply demonstrated in their mistreatment of the word of God in favor of their own lusts. They were perverting the word of God, the writing of Paul in particular, to set forth the doctrine of salvation on the merits of God’s grace alone, thus opening the door to all kinds of sexual misconduct which brought about their comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jud 1:8 –“speak evil of dignitaries”

This is their comparison with the Israelites who had been freed from Egyptian bondage. We see examples of their unbelief, grumbling and complaining in Exo 14:12; Exo 16:3; Exo 17:2-3, Num 20:2-5. In Exo 32:1, Moses having been gone for a period of time on Mt. Sinai, we read of the Israelites rebellion against Moses and God and their worship of the golden calf.

Jude compared these apostates to the Israelites who rebelled against Moses’ authority. This is another way of identifying them and is in direct conflict with clear and concise apostolic teaching on the regard with which the Christian is to have for authorities. Rom 13:1-3, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves”. The only time a Christian ever to resist the commands of the authorities in power over him is when to do so results in a transgression of God’s will as evidenced in Act 5:29 when the Jewish high council ordered the apostles to stop preaching Jesus and they refused.

Jud 1:9 –Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Michael is mentioned in scriptures in a number of places. Here we learn that He is an archangel which means he is chief among other angels. From this we can deduce that there is a hierarchy of some fashion among the heavenly beings. Biblical references to Michael begin in the book of Daniel in Dan 10:21 and Dan 12:1 where we learn that he was a prince or guardian angel seeing over the affairs of the Jewish people. He is again mentioned by name in Rev 12:7-9 where we learn that he personally led a war on the side of God between the unfallen angels and those who unwisely chose to follow after Satan. The outcome of this heavenly revolt ended with Satan and his angels being cast permanently out of heaven to earth where after a brief period of time were sent on to their incarceration in chains of darkness in Tartarus where they await the final judgment as we saw in Jud 1:6.

Many are the varied deductions drawn from this verse. These are all at best speculation. There is nothing in scripture anywhere else which expounds on what we see here from this immediate context. What is immediately evident is that Michael and Satan had a confrontation over the body of Moses. Evidently Satan had some kind of diabolical use for his dead body. All we really can deduce in regards to why Satan would desire the body of Moses stems from our knowledge of his continual efforts at the deception and destruction of mankind. It is a safe assumption indeed that Satan was up to no good and had grand designs of using Moses’ body as an instrument of harm.

Michael stood opposed to Satan and whatever designs he had for the body of Moses. Instead of railing on Satan over the issue, Michael calmly confronted Satan with the words, “The Lord Rebuke You”. From this we learn that speaking in opposition to those in authority is not the same as speaking evil of them. There is a proper way to do anything and those who would oppose the authorities dare not bring against them railing accusation, rather a calm presentation of the facts with a cool head and a quiet spirited demeanor. This speaks to the conduct expected of one who would represent God even in times of emotionally charged circumstances.

Evidently the apostates to whom Jude was referring were in the habit of significantly harsh demonstrations of verbal abuse directed at those in authority. such behavior is not only unchristian like behavior it also served as a signature mannerism by which these false teachers could be identified. So we now have licentiousness, immorality, lack of respect for authority and railers which were the identifying characteristics of those who had crept in privily.

Railing is described as violent or slanderous denunciation or condemnation. And this behavior is soundly condemned in scripture (1Pe 3:9, 2Ti 3:2). Interestingly, we have a similar passage of scripture written by Peter in 2Pe 2:10-11 where he specifically mentions a class of people who’s characteristics match the apostates in Jude perfectly, “and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.” Here Peter was prophesying of these heretics to come in the future. By the time Jude wrote his epistle this class of heretic had come and had manifested themselves in the Lord’s church and were spreading their heresy. And it should be noted that even though these heretics are going to suffer the condemnation of Hell, it is still entirely improper to rail against them, even if one is an angel and it is before the Lord Himself.

The proper conduct of the faithful Christian is given in scripture as we read in 1Pe 3:4-5 “…let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God”. 2Ti 2:24-26, “a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth.” Verses such as these makes one wonder what the leaders of the religious wars of the crusades were thinking when they sent their armies out to convert the masses to Christianity by force.

Jud 1:10 –But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.

Jud 1:10 –“But these” Jude is still referring to the false teachers which are the primary subject of his epistle.

Jud 1:10 –“speak evil of whatever they do not know” The ASV renders this, “But these rail at whatsoever things they know not”. The Greek word used for “speak evil” or “rail” is “blasphemo” which is where we get the English word ‘Blaspheme’. It means to defame, revile, vilify or speak impiously. These false teachers have no idea what the facts are of who they are defaming. They are simply engaging in this behavior for whatever reasons, none of them good and making things up to substantiate their claims.

Jud 1:10 –“and whatever they know naturally” What genuine information they do possess about the facts is likewise spoken evil of. These false teachers have nothing good to say about those who fall under their scrutiny whether based in fact or simply made up for the purpose of adding reinforcement to their accusations.

Jud 1:10 –“like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves”These individuals were set as a contrast to Michael, not hesitating to speak evil of matters they know nothing about. Their only knowledge being their passions, the instincts and impulses that mankind shares with the animal creation. In this behavior, they are only corrupting themselves. Paul wrote of a similar behavior in Col 2:18, where he condemned those who would intrude “into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind”. Those who surrender themselves to their fleshly appetites descend to the level of brutes and forfeit their spiritual standing and any hope of an eternal destiny associated with God.

These people had already demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to suppress their fleshly appetites. Their entire theology was twisted around what they wanted in so far as that was concerned. Their unsuppressed railing on others is merely another facet of their evil persona. Speaking evil and reviling others was merely another outlet for their already unrestrained behavior patterns. They are wholly governed by their passions, exercising no restraint or inhibition whatsoever.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Reciprocal: Exo 22:28 – nor curse Num 12:8 – were ye Num 16:12 – General Deu 17:11 – According to Job 34:18 – General Jer 29:23 – and have Mar 7:23 – defile Luk 11:25 – he findeth Act 23:5 – Thou Rom 13:1 – every Eph 4:31 – evil speaking Col 3:8 – blasphemy 1Th 4:8 – despiseth not 1Ti 6:2 – let 2Ti 3:4 – Traitors Tit 1:12 – liars Tit 3:2 – speak Jam 3:6 – a world 1Pe 2:13 – General 2Pe 2:10 – Presumptuous

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jud 1:8. Filthy dreamers means they had visions of depraved indulgencies which defiled the flesh. Speak evil of dignities is explained at 2Pe 2:10.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jud 1:8. And yet these men (Jud 1:4) actually do the same things as the people of Sodom and the fallen angels.

in their dreamings they defile the flesh, that of others as well as their own; they live in the feelings of their own perverted sense, and they corrupt others as well as themselves (others sharing in their sin); and they set at nought lordship, ownership, dominion (the supremacy that belongs to one who is lord), and rail at dignities (Greek, gloriesthe splendour that belongs to those who are exalted). The statement may be general, or it may refer to Christ and to the authority of His kingdom. In favour of the former view is the fact noted by many moralists that licentiousness is closely connected with contempt for all authority: no other vice, indeed, so easily demoralizes the entire nature. The second view is more in harmony with the context. Some refer the dignities here spoken of to evil angels, under whose power these teachers had fallen, and whom nevertheless they mocked as powerless, or even as imaginary beings, and they appeal in proof to the next verse. But the connection of the two verses is of another kind. We are not to rail at even Satan, nor at earthly princes or dignities, though they be his instruments: he and they are to be left in Gods hands.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

As if our apostle had said, “Notwithstanding these fore-mentioned examples of God’s vengeance upon the unclean Sodomites, and others, yet these heretical seducers, whom he calls dreamers, because they vented their own dreams and phantasies, instead of God’s truth, did defile themselves with their filthy practices, teaching that by their Christian liberty they were freed from all civil subjection, speaking evil of those who were set in authority over them.

Here observe, 1. That the doctrines which seducers bring, are not the truths of Christ, but their own dreams. Dreams they are in point of opinion, and dreams they will be found in point of expectation; they promise much, but perform nothing.

2. That dreams of error, or heretical principles, do dispose towards filthy and unclean practices. Filthy dreamers defile the flesh. Avoid error in judgment, if you would escape filthiness in conversation.

3. That lust loves not restraint, libertines despise dominion, sensuality makes men unruly; such are sons of Belail, they cast off the yoke.

4. That such as despise government speak evil of governors: dignities lie open to the lash of the tongue; neither power nor innocency can protect from calumny and imputations, from slander and false accusation: These filthy dreamers despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Apostates in Jude’s Day

In verse 8, Jude showed the false teachers had committed sins similar to those committed by those in the Old Testament examples he had previously given. They had committed sins of the flesh that were of the lowest nature. They showed no respect for authority and it did not bother them to say bad things against people in high positions.

“Michael the archangel,” or “chief,” or “captain” of the angels, is mentioned only in Jud 1:9 and Rev 12:7-9 in the New Testament. He is pictured as the protector of Israel against the world’s pagan powers in Dan 10:13 ; Dan 10:21 ; Dan 12:1 . Jude said he was in a discussion over the body of Moses. While we know nothing more of this discussion, it can easily be seen Jude was making a point about this high angelic being and the fact that he would not even say an evil word against the devil. There is quite a contrast between this action and those of the false teachers.

Not only did the false teachers speak evil, they even spoke against things about which they did not know or understand. The only things they understood concerned the fulfillment of physical appetites. They did that to the point of their own destruction. They could only look forward to woe because they were like Cain. He followed his own desires instead of walking the path of obedient service ( Gen 4:7 ). Balaam simply did his works to gain monetary profit ( Num 22:5-7 ). Korah rebelled against Moses’ and God’s authority in the wilderness in his lusty hunger for power ( Num 16:1-35 ). These men are examples of the type of attitude the false teachers must have portrayed ( Jud 1:10-11 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

8. Likewise, indeed, these also dreaming pollute the flesh, reject lordship and speak evil of glories. Remember, Jude is shooting this red-hot lightning at the carnal preachers and people in the fourth verse. Lordship is kuriotees, the abstract noun from kurios , lord, uniformly used in Scripture derivative of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Hence reject lordship means that these people reject the divine government, revealed in Gods Word and Spirit. The Holy Ghost has the sole right to rule the churches and individual Christians. All we mean by holiness people is the people of all races, sex and countries who obey God, revealed in His Word and Spirit, i.e., they are loyal to the Holy Ghost. The holiness people know no authority but the Bible and the Holy Ghost. They are certainly the only people in the world who can claim loyalty to God. Ye can not serve God and mammon. They blaspheme, i.e. speak evil of glories, i.e., the glory of holiness. Hence you see the great army of carnal preachers and worldly professors are involved in this awful anathema.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Jud 1:8-16. The false brethren sin in like manner. In their dreamings, i.e. vain conceits (yielding to their own wayward fancies, Chase), they are licentious and rebellious. They despise the Lordship (Jud 1:8*) and rail at the glorious ones (cf. mg.). Unlike Michael, who in his controversy with the devil did not abuse him, they do not fear to utter abuse upon things which are beyond their knowledge (i.e. the Lordship and the glorious ones); and in the carnal things which, like mere animals, they do understand, they are destroyed. They are compared to Cain, to Balaam, and to Korah. They are as dangerous as hidden rocks, selfish as shepherds who only feed themselves, useless as floating, waterless clouds or barren trees, disobedient as wandering stars (which keep not their own principalitytheir sin is like that of the fallen angels and they are doomed to the same fatesee on Jud 1:6). It was to these also that Enoch spoke when he foretold the final judgment. They are discontented, licentious, boastful, unprincipled self-seekers. The whole passage should be compared with 2Pe 2:10-17.

Jud 1:8. dominion: render, the Lordship, i.e. Christ or God: cf. Didach 4:1 (whencesoever the Lordship speaketh, there is the Lord).dignities: render, the glorious ones, i.e. the heavenly beings (2Pe 2:10*).

Jud 1:9. The story of Michael is taken from the Assumption of Moses. The devil claimed the body of Moses on the ground that he was a murderer (Exo 2:11). This was blasphemy which Michael would not tolerate, yet he forbore to charge the devil with blasphemy, and merely said: The Lord rebuke thee. The story is not found in that fragment of the Assumption which has been preserved, but its presence in the original work is well attested (cf. Clement of Alexandrias Commentary on Jude; also Origen, de Princ. III, ii. 1).

Jud 1:11. in the way of Cain: the false brethren were not murderers, and there is an element of exaggeration in the comparison, which probably accounts for 2 P.s omission of it; but cf. Wis 10:3, where Cain is regarded as a typically unrighteous man. Jude emphasizes mainly the uncleanness (the error) of Balaam (Numbers 25, the sin of Baal-Peor; cf. Rev 2:14); in 2 P. the emphasis is rather on his covetousness. Korah despised the authority of Moses (Numbers 16), as the false brethren despised the rulers of the church.

Jud 1:12. love-feasts: 2Pe 2:13*. Taken in connexion with shepherds that feed themselves, and the charge of making separations (Jud 1:19), we may suppose the reference is to such disorders as are mentioned in connexion with the Lords Supper at Corinth 1Co 11:18-22).

Jud 1:14. Enoch, the seventh from Adam (cf. Genesis 5): the quotation is based on two passages in the introduction to the Book of Enoch (1:9 and 5:4).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

1:8 Likewise also these {i} [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, {6} despise {k} dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

(i) Who are so stupid and void of reason as if all their fears and wits were asleep.

(6) Another most destructive doctrine of theirs, in that they take away the authority of the government and slander them.

(k) It is a greater matter to despise government than the governors, that is to say, the matter itself than the persons.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

B. Present Failures vv. 8-16

Jude next expounded the errors of the false teachers in his day to warn his readers even more strongly. A feature of Jude’s style is that he referred to certain Old Testament types (Jud 1:5-7; Jud 1:11) or prophecies (Jud 1:14-15; Jud 1:17-18) and then proceeded to interpret them as fulfilled by the false teachers (Jud 1:8-10; Jud 1:12-13; Jud 1:16; Jud 1:19).

"Following his illustrations of the past fate of apostates (Jud 1:5-7), Jude turns to a direct attack upon the apostates who are invading the churches being addressed." [Note: Hiebert, Second Peter . . ., p. 241.]

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

1. The nature of the error vv. 8-9

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

Jude now pinpointed the three errors he had just illustrated and accused the false teachers of all three: lust (Jud 1:7), rebellion (Jud 1:5), and irreverence (Jud 1:6). "By dreaming" probably refers to all three errors. Jude probably meant that the false teachers justified their actions by citing visions and dreams they claimed to have had (cf. Col 2:18).

"Their perverted views and unrestrained conduct made them like dreamers living in the arbitrary fancies of their own imagination; they substituted the unreal world of their fancies for the real world of divine truth and righteousness." [Note: Ibid., p. 243.]

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