w^^^^ PRINCETON, N. J. SM/.. Division Section A. r^.>D\..h^. Number V> C ,y^se^pgas!?»i^i>^|ip?:i-^j^?i5^i|^5 =#■- .* ..'}.'' ■«? M' JDT . .^ - r --r JT- ^ / -r -it X - V' *^- , K 1 AN AMERICAN COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. EDITED BY ALVAH HOVEY, D.D., LL.D. y^ PHILADELPHIA: AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 1420 Chestnut Street. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OE JUDE. BY NATHANIEL MARSHM AN WILLIAMS, D. D. 18 PHILADELPHIA: AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 1420 Chestnut Street. Entered, according to A.et of Congress, in the year 1888, by the AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. I. JUDE. The name of our author in Hebrew would have been Yehuda (Judah) ; in Greek it is loudas (Jude). It means praise, honor. A Jude was an apostle. (Luke 6 : 16; Acts 1:13.) Tliat Jude was also called " Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus " (Matt. 10 : 3) ; Thaddeus. (Mark 3 : 18.) In the Common Version, he is called " the brother" of James, but there being in the original no word for brother, the question has been raised whether brother or son should be supplied. In our Epistle brother is not supplied, but is a translation. Was the writer a brother of Jesus and also an apostle ? or, was he only a brother of the Lord and not an apostle? Were the "brothers" of the Lord actual brothers? or, were they cousins? These questions have been much discussed. Not even an outline of the argument on either side can be given ; the student will find aid in Meyer, Ai-naud, Alford, Lange, Schafi", Andrews, Smith's "Bible Dictionary," EUicott, Farrar, Mombert (an Excursus in Lange), and elsewhere. Such difficulties attend the subject, that a decision seems to be impossible. The "cousin theory "rests upon the as- sumption that it is not for the honor of Mary to suppose that she had any other children, and not for the honor of Jesus to suppose that he had any brothers; and to this assump- tion one may be easily led by false views of marriage. He who holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary, never yet proved, must believe that the " brothers" of Jesus were not brothers. With the cousin theory has been connected excessive honoring of Mary (Mari- olatry). Of the life of Jude considered as a younger brother of the Lord, and not as an apostle (the view which seems to have the fewest difficulties), little is known. He was at first an unbeliever. (John 7:5.) His conversion may have occurred soon after the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 1 : 14.) The Epistle yields almost the only data for estimating Jude's mental traits, and though these prove him to have been a man of clear perception, vivid imagination, intense sensibility, and strong will, they are not sufficient for making a thorough analysis. He may have been of a more tender nature than his Epistle alone would lead us to suppose. The vehemence of his spirit is not vindictiveness, but results &om deep conscientiousness. It is the fruit of loyalty to Christ, made more than usually intense by knowledge of the rapid spread and growing insolence of error in the churches. Following, as the epistles stand in the English Testament, John's sweet breathings of love, Jude's concentrated invective, however just and needful, is like a tornado following the still hours of a summer's day II. THE OBJECT AND THE PLAN OF THE EPISTLE. The object is to exhort the readers to contend earnestly for the faith. (Ver. 3.) The necessity for so doing was great. Certain men, who had come stealthily into the churches, 3 4 INTEODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. It was of the utmost importance to save the churches from the ruin which threatened them. The Epistle is very methodical, and as method is sometimes supposed to be unfavor- able to feeling, the union here of strict method and intense feeling should be noted. The usual form of salutation precedes. (Ver. 1, 2.) After announcing the object (ver. 3), and expressing the urgent necessity for writing and exhorting (ver. 4), the writer first reminds the readers of the destruction sent in ancient times upon unbelieving Israelites (ver. 5), sinning angels (ver. 6), and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Ver. 7.) Then he proceeds to characterize the new class of sinners (ver. 8-16), conti-asting them as to one of their traits, with Michael the archangel. In the course of the description he shows by a quotation from the book of " Enoch " (Henoch), that the men in question had been the object of prophetic denunciation. (Ver. 14, 15.) The description closed (ver. 16), the readers are reminded that the coming of such men had been declared by the apos- tles ; are exhorted to make spiritual progress ; to expect eternal life through the mercy of God ; and to make a wise discrimination in their methods of treating the deceived members of the church. The Epistle closes with an uncommonly rich doxology. III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EPISTLE. The Epistle is both original and dependent. The latter is seen in its striking resem- blance to the Second Epistle of Peter. See Introduction to that Epistle, III. The pas- sages which are similar are the following : 2 Peter 1 : 5. Jude 3. " 2: 1. 4. " 2: 4. 6. " 2: 6, 9, 10. 7, a " 2: 11. 9. " 2: 12. 10. " 2: 15. 11, u 2: 13-17. 12, 13. " 2: 18. 16. " 3: 1-3. 17, 18. Farrar (" Early Days of Christianity "), in his translation of the Epistle has attempted 10 show what he regards as "the affinity between this Epistle and Second Peter, by printing in italics those identical or closely analogous words and phrases which occur in both. " He presents about fifty-seven instances. In some of the cases adduced the resemblance is very marked : but in several of them it is clearly unjust to allege either designed or unde- signed imitation, whether by Peter or by Jude. Some of the words cited are common property. A slave (more correctly a bondservant) of Jesiis Christ, is used by Paul in Rom. 1 : 1 ; a servant of God, in Titus 1 : 1 ; a servant of God, in James 1 : 1, as well as in Peter and Jude. Kept is used in John 17 : 11, in 1 Peter 1 : 5, and elsewhere. Angels is so common a word that it is useless to cite cases. It is difficult to see how the use of such a word shows any special "affinity" between Peter and Jude. The same maybe said of the very common words denied, day, Master, Jesus Christ, Sodom and Gomorrah, flesh, example, blameless, majesty, power, now. Amen. The address, beloved, is common INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. to Peter, John, and Jude. To remind ("put you in remembrance," Common Version) is common to Luke, John, Jude, and Peter. Yet some words and phrases are so pecuHar as to show that one of the two writers (Jude or Peter) must have been in some degree depend- ent on the ether. Many hold that Jude wrote first and some that Peter wrote first. If, on literary grounds, it may seem more probable that the former was the original writer, yet it seems improbable that the greatest of the twelve apostles would borrow so freely from one who held a eomiiaratively obscure position in the primitive Church. It has been affirmed that the milder phraseology of l*eter proves that the apostle purjjosely toned down the severe language of Jude. This is possible, but it is equally possible that Jude was stimulated by the apostle's powerful denunciations to write with still greater severity against the error and immorality with which he may be presumed to have been brought into closer contact than even Peter himself, whether Peter were still in the dis- tant eastern city of Babylon (1 Peter 5 : 13), or in Rome as a prisoner. Assuming that Peter wrote first, concerning which, probably, there will always be opposite ojiiniotis, the questions arise : Did Jude deliberately copy from Peter ? Or, was he so jicrmeated with Peter's thoughts and langmige that he unconsciously used his material? In modern times the former would have been plagiarism (Latin, plagium, kidnapping). Kidnapping thought in another's words is a vice which was not unrecognized by literary men in ancient Rome. But, as has been remarked, neither epistle shows slavish dependence, actual copying, literary poverty and incapacity; but whichever should be held as posterior, it was prepared with literary freedom. The question of priority has been discussed by Huther, Dietlein, Farrar, and others. Though, as the present writer thinks, Jude wrote later than Peter, yet his epistle is marked for not a little originality, which is seen even in his bolder and severer utterances of what the apostle says in a manner more restrained, and of which more particular notice will be taken in our study of the text. M\ that has been said concerning the style of Peter's Second Epistle, may be said concerning Jude's with added emphasis. IV. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. That Jude was its author may be believed for the following reasons : It is mentioned in the Latin Muratoriau Fragment, the Greek original of which was written about A. D. 170. This Fragment put the Epistle among those books concerning which there was some difference of opinion ; yet it says that it is received in the Catholic [Church], or is reckoned among the Catholic [Epistles]. It is ascribed to Jude by Clement of Alexan- dria, A. D. 165-220, in Eusebius. Origen, A. D. 186-253, often quotes it; Tertullian also, latter half of the second century ; the author of a treatise " commonly appended to the works of Cyprian, in which it is quoted as Scripture " (Westcott) ; Malchion, A. D. 260- 272, a presbyter of Antioch ("a clear allusion to the Epistle of Jude "). It is quoted by Palladius, a friend of Chrysostom, A. D. 407. It "is contained in the Laodicene A. D. 363, Carthaginian A. D. 397, and so-called Apostolic catalogues" (Smith's "Bible Dic- tionary.") Though it was early received as a part of God's word, yet it was not received without some hesitation, this arising not from fear that it was a forgery, but from knowl- edge of its peculiar character, and from its similarity to the Second Epistle of Peter. Concerning its alleged quotations from the apocry})hal book of Henoch, see on verse 14. Its internal character is not inconsistent with Christian teaching elsewhere, and shows the author to have been an intense lover of Christians and Christian truth. 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. V. TIME, PLACE OF WRITING, AND TO WHOM SENT. Neither of these can be determined. Palestine may have been the place where, and the time suggested varies from A. D. 64 to A. D. 80. If the Epistle was written later than Peter's and before the destruction of Jerusalem, which latter is highly probable, it must have been written during the interval between the death of Peter and the destruc- tion of the citj' — that is, before A. D. 70. (Fronmiiller. ) That it was written before Jeru- salem was destroyed is to be presumed from its silence relative to that event. It does not profess to be sent to any given Church. In the latter part of the apostolic period, its warnings were greatly needed. THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. JUDE, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to llieui that are sauctitied by God the Father, and preserved iu Jesus Clirist, und called : '2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multi- plied. 1 1 Jude, a 'servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, a to theiu llial are called, beloved iu (jod the 2 l^'alher, aud kept for Jesus ('hrlst: Mercy unto you aud peace and love be multiplied. 1 Or. Judat 2 6r. bondservant 3 Or, to them that are beloved in Ood the Father, and kept/or Jeeua Cliritt, beiDg called. 1, 2. Inscription and Invocation. 1. Jnde. See Introduction, I. The ser- vant — bond-servant. See on 2 Peter 1: 1, and especially on 1 Peter 2: 18 (" servants ') Brother of James. See Introduction, I. The writer may have referred to James, be- cause the latter was better known. James had the oversight of the church in Jerusalem, wrote the Epistle of James, and was a man of influence. (Acts 12; i7; i5: 13-32; oai. 2:9.) A man of no humilitj' would have taken pains to men- tion his kinship to the Lord; a man of ordi- nary humility might have mentioned it under the notion that thereby his usefulness would be extended. Jude avows himself a servant of the Lord; that he was a brother is not so much as hinted. To them, etc. — more cor- rectly, to the called who are beloved in Ood the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ. 'Called.' See 2 Peter 1 : 3. Sanctified (properly, be- loved) by God. Even if the Greek for sancti- fied were the true reading, the English should be sanctified in, which expresses a richer thought than sanctified by. Not instrumen- tality', but close connection with the life of God by communion with God himself is the thought expressed. If the true Greek isbeloved (pjvarrijfieVois), which is probable, it is beloved in God. Some would supply thus: beloved in God by us, but no supply is necessary'. The Father. God is the Father of the re- generated, but here the relation existing between God and Christ seems to be meant, as in Gal. 1:1; Phil. 2:11; Eph. 6 ; 23 ; 1 Peter 1 : 2. Preserved — kept, which is sim- pler, and is the word generally used. To (for) Jesus Christ. The 'called' are Christ's. Those who are Christ's are God's, and those who are God's are Christ's. (johniTMO.) See especially the petition in the Lord's high- priestly prayer : "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me." (John 17:11.) See also John 17 : 15. The 'called' are kept for Christ. No richer thought can be found even in the longest of Paul's epistles; a great pearl in a small casket. Thus of the 'called' two things are affirmed: 1. Beloved in God, tlie Father of Christ ; 2. Kept for Christ. God is the keeper, and the keeping is for Christ. Having been kept till the present, it may be believed that they will be kept forever. Kept by God for Christ /ro?n evil. Tiie prisoner was kept by a chain binding him to the keeper; the called are kept by love binding tliem to the Infinite Love. Remark. — Concerning different readings of Greek manuscripts, such as are found even in this first verse of our Epistle, see "Re- marks'' in the comments on 1 Peter 1 : 8. 2. In ten of Paul's epistles, the invocation is an invocation of grace and peace ; in three, of grace, mercy, and joeace; in Hebrews, of grace, but standing at the end instead of the beginning. In all these but Hebrews, here assumed to be written by Paul, the source of the blessing invoked is given : from Ood the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, with very slight variation in form. In James, greeting is used. In both of Peter's epistles it is grace and peace, with the addition, be multiplied; in the Epistle before us, mercy, and peace, and love, with the same addition. John, in his First Epistle, uses no invocation whatever; in the second, grace, mercy, and peace, with the remarkable addition, frotn Ood the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father; in the third, peace at the close. Jude's invocation, then, is unlike not onlj- Pe- ter's in the Second Epistle, but all the others in the New Testament. It is worth something as showing his independence. "Grace," found in almost all the other epistles, is wanting. 'Mercy,' found in only three of Paul's epis- tles, and in Second John, is used, while ' love' is used in the invocation of no other epistle. 7 JUDE. 3 BeloveS, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the couimon salvation, it was newltiil for me to write uuto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write uuto you of our coujuiou salvation,! was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the 4 saints. For there are certain men crept in privily, 'Mercy' is the unmerited source, 'peace' and 'love' are the blissful results, whether by ' love ' is meant the mutual love of the readers, or their love to God, or God's love to them, or all three. See on 1 Peter 1 : 2. 3,4. The Necessity FOR Writing. Com- pare 1 Peter 1: 12, 13; 3: 1. 3. Beloved — a form of address seldom used. (3 John 2, 5, 11 ; 1 Peter 2 : 11 ; 4 : 12 ; 2 I eter 3:1,8, 14, 17.) It reflects light upon the writer's character. Without this tender word Jude might have been deemed constitutionally severe. Men ■who are naturally severe are sometimes, how- ever, very tender in spirit. It is not impossi- ble, therefore, that if we knew more of Jude's nature, we should be under the necessity of modifying a little what has just been said. Diligence, earneistness, imj)lying strong de- sire and purpose. He was desiring and intend- ing to write tliem of something, but the desire and purpose were arrested by a necessitj' which impelled him to do something else. The common salvation. Valuable manu- scripts have (liMW") "our." This is adopted by Westcott and Hort and the Kevised Ver- sion: our common salvation. This was the subject on which he earnestly desired to write them. ' Common ' — not to Jews and Gentiles, but shared by all believers. See Titus 1 : 4 ("common faith"); 2 Peter 1: 1 ("like precious faith"). See on the latter. 'Sal- vation' — effected for believers through the redeeming death of Christ, thus their actual salvation, not a system of doctrine. 'The common salvation ' — the same for the learned and the igjiorant. From the fact of a com- mon salvation is easily deduced the duty of common Christian love. May the time come when the duty shall be as heartily felt as the fact is strongly believed ! Needful — literally, / had necessity — that is, I felt im- pelled. He was impelled by what he knew of the influence of bad men who professed to be good men. To write — in a strain differ- ent from what he intended. A letter of exhortation was necessary. The inspired writers are remarkable for versatility in handling religious truth ; sometimes reason- ing, sometimes exhorting, sometimes doing both. The exigency required Jude to exhort. AVe should have been well instructed, doubt- less, had he written as he first intended to write — on the common salvation. It is useless to regret that he changed his mind, and decided to rouse saints by rasping sinners. Earnestly contend for — one word in the Greek, a verb compounded with a preposition. The verb without the preposition is used in Luke 13: 24 ("5'^7'it;e to enter in"). Agonize \?, the original word in English dress. It was used with reference to the striving of men in the Greek games to win the prize. As applied to that, it signifies the utmost possible effort of the will, through nerve and muscle, to overcome all competitors. The compound word is, "to fight standing upon a thing which is assaulted, and which the adversary desires to take away" (Dr. Jlombert in Fronmiiller). The faith — not a formula of words, but the entire scheme of Christianitj', here distinguislied by its leading characteristic. Once (once for nil) delivered. The faith is a finality. It admits no addition and no subtraction. (Rev. 22:18,19.) But according to Romanism it is otherwise. The more Christianitj' is studied the more of itself it will reveal, but the book which contains it is complete. The saints — "those consecrated to him (the Lord), and so his. This term, as applied in the New Tes- tament, refers to the normal or prescribed standard of Christian character, rather than the actual one. See 1 Cor. 1 : 2, as compared with 1 Cor. 3: 2; 11: 21, etc. It belongs to all who profess to be disciples, and does not distinguish one class of them as superior to others in point of excellence." (Hackett's "Com. on the Acts," 9: 13). Yet see 1 Peter 2: 9, and comments. Indifference to assaults upon Chri-stianity or any piirt of it, or to the gradual rise of error, however slight, is un- worthj' the Christian name. Vigorous defense of truth and positive attack of error is the duty of every Christian. Indifference to error is a sign of false liberalism and humili- ating weakness. It finds no countenance in the example of the apostles, (i Tim. 6 : s, 4 ; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:16-18:4:2-4; Titns 1 : 9-13.) And OUr Epistlc is itself proof of the intensity of Jude's opposi- JUDE. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who ■were before of old ordained to tliis condeninaiion, un- godly men, turning Iho grace of our God into lascivi- ousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesuii Christ. even they who were of old, i written of beforehand unto this condeninaiion, ungodly men, turning tlie grace of our dud into lasciviousness, and denying -our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 1 Or, tet forth 2 Or, the only Master, and our hori Jetue CHrUt, tion to all departures from Christian truth. A single illustration may be in point. Should one teach that the rite of baptism as enjoined by Christ and the apostles had the form of immersion and no other form, hut that in some later age was changed by men ("a human invention") into a rite very unlike it, sprinkling for example, and should defend the change as rightly made, tliougli admitting it to have been made with no divine authority whatever, it is clear that the way would have been prepared for changing the Lord's Supper also. It is clear, indeed, that no limit could be placed to the changes which men might make in the Christian s^^stem. But the in- spired word, '"contend earnestly for the faith," positively forbids the first change, not less than the second, i 4. For introduces the reason for being under the necessity of writing this kind of a letter. Certain men-indefinite, but they must have been known to the readers. To affirm that by ' men ' Jude intended to express the unrenewed nature of the false teachers, shows to what a strain it is possible to put words. There are . . . crept in. The Eevised Ver- sion renders in the same way. Better, it is thought, certain, men crept in. It refers to some past point of time, yet includes the idea that tiie men are still living, and living as members of churches. That such men were, during a greater of less period, members of churches is clear from Acts 20: 29, 30; 1 John 2: 19. These men came in utenlthily., privily — that is, though openly received as members, they kept their false views to themselves, and managed to conceal awhile their impurity of life. They were hypocrites at the outset. Their errors and impurities may at first have existed only in germ, but they must have been rapidly developed. Whether more or less, their immoralities and errors were kept awhile so concealed that they themselves can be said to have crept into the church privily. Before (of old) ordained— not primarilj', predetermined by the purpose of God, but written before; not written in Paul's epistles, or in Peters, for 'of old' takes us back to an earlier period. They had long ago been described. Accord- ing to the methods of interpreting the OM Testament in apostolic times, tiny passage of the Old Testament wiiich foretells tiie coming of bad men could be applied to the men in question. A more definite referencu is unnecessary. Pre-ordina.ion of these men Jo punishment, however, is as true as pre- ordination of any other sinners to punish- ment. All incorrigible sinners are ordained to punishment in the sense that unforsaken sin will draw upon itself the punishment which it is God's holy and eternal will to inflict. Tlii.s condemnation — the punish- ment, not yet named, but even now in his thoughts. Ungodly men — irreverent toward God, and therefore godless. God around them, over them, within them, yet are they godless. Turning the grace— the third spe- cial affirmation relative to certain men. The indefinite is becoming definite. 'The grace' — not grace given in regeneration, for the men give no evidence of renewal, but the grace oflTered to men in Christianity. Our God. 'Our' marks very beautifully the appropriation of the Divine Being as em- phatically theirs, in distinction from the rejection of him by these godless men. 'God,' with no appropriating word, is a sign of weak- ness of faith; it may be proof of positive unbelief. Into lasciviousness. The word isusedinlPeter4:3; 2 Peter 2: 7 (''filthy"); 2: 18 ("wantonness"). Turning the grace. How? The grace of God, undeserved favor manifested in forgiving sin for the sake of Christ, brings men into liberty (iPeter2:i6; oai. 3:13; 5:1, 13) — that IS, into freedom from the law viewed as something to be obe^-ed in order to be justified from the condemning power of conscience, and from the tj'ranny of passion. If one who professes to have come into such freedom has come into it, not in fact, but only in pretence, he will be in dan- 1 See the Dean of Westminister on baptism. 10 JUDE. 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how thai the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Kgypt, afterward destroyed theiu that believed not. 5 Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things once for all, how that ithe Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, 1 Many very ancient Butborliies read Jeius. ger of surrendering himself all the more freely to the doniinion of lust. This will be 'turning the grace of God into lascivious- ness.' Denying, etc. In several manu- scripts God {dtov) is wanting. It is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and "Wescott and Hort. The Greek for 'Lord (5eon-on7i/) is not the word which is commonly used where the English has ' Lord.' Its origi- nal meaning is Master, and despot. Widely different in meaning from the Greek is this Greek word in English letters. Jesus Christ is a loving Master, not a despot. But is Lord (that is, Master) here applied to God the Father? or is it applied to Christ? In the New Testament it is in most cases used re- specting the former. (Luke 2: 29; Acts 4; 24; Rev. 6: 10.) In 2 Peter 2: 1 it is applied to Christ. As Jude is here so much like Peter, it would seem that he, as well as Peter, must refer to Christ; but variations from Peter, as the use of only and the omission of that brought them, awaken uncertainty. If we translate the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which may be the correct rendering. Master would manifestly refer to God the Father. If we translate, wh4ch is allowable, our only Master and I/ord, Jesus Christ, then Master, as well as Lord (/ciipiov) refers to Christ. 'Denying,' etc. See 1 John 2: 22. They denied Jesus Christ by a life of excess. Such a life was denial of Christ, since Christ himself was so pure. In words they maj' have professed to receive him, but probably their sentiments concerning Christ were as bad as their life. One may deny Christ by adding to him some- thing which he is not, or by subtracting from him something which he is. Like his broth- ers, Jude lived some time without seeing and publicly acknowledging the Messianic claims of Jesus; but there is no evidence that, like these men, he denied the Lord, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. 5-7. Examples OF God's Pxtnitite Jus- tice. 5. First Example. Therefore is an error of translation. It should be hut, and will should be desire, thus: But I desire to put you, etc. Compare 2 Peter 1; 12. Though, etc— literally, knotring this, as knowing this. Tiiey already know the historical facts which he is about to give, and for that very reason he puts them in remembrance. Once—once for all. {ver. 3.) This. Manuscripts favor the reading which means all things, and this is adopted in the Kevised Version. They know, once for all, all things pertaining to God's revealed will, whether of the Old Testatnent, or of the New. How that — more simply, that ; I desire to remind j-ou that, etc. The Lord— God, the Father. But Jesus is another reading. "Some primitive error" would seem to have crept in. See "VVestcott and Hort. What is the correct reading it may never be possible to decide. In 1 Cor. 10: 4 is a representation of Christ, with which, to say the least, the reading Jesus is in harmony: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for thej' drank of a spiritual rock that fol- lowed thern : and that rock was Ciirist." (Rev. Ver. ) If Christ, in his pre-existent, divine nature, therefore as the Son of God, as the Word, wlio afterward appeared as man, accompanied the Israelitesduringtheir march through the wilderness, protecting and help- ing them (Meyer on 1 Cor. 10: 4), why may it not also be true that the deliverance of the people from Egypt, and the subsequent de- struction of those that believed not, were effected by God through the medium of the same pre-existing Son ? But the student will notice that, according to the suggested read- ing, Jude uses the name (Jesus) by means of wliich, as Huther says, is denoted the earthly, human personality of Christ. It maj-, indeed, be deetned contrary to all analogj' of Scrip- ture to ascribe to Jesus, rather than to Christ, or the Eternal Son, the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, etc. ; yet, as Huther himself sa5'S, Jude could have done this from the consciousness of identity of the Eternal Son and the Son of Marj'. If the commonly- received reading is correct, Lo7-d must proba- bly be understood as referring to God the Father. The people — a people. There is no article in the Greek. Unconsciously, per- JUDE. 11 6 And the angels which kept not tlieir first estate, but Ic'l't their own habitulion, he lialh reserved in ever- lasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 6 1 afterward destroyed them that believed not. And angels who kept not their own piincij)aliiy, but left their projter haliitation, he liath kept in everlasung bonds under darkness unto the judguieul of the 7 great day. Even aa tjodom and Gomorrah, and the 1 Gr. the eecond time. haps, the writer strikes a minor key by the omission of Ats. Compare Matt. 1 : 21; Luke 1: 68; Kom. 11: 1 (his people). Afterward — the second time. Tiie idea is this : That the Lord, having delivered the people out of the land of Egypt, the second time did not de- liver, hut destroyed them that believed not. The history shows that all but the young, and Joshua and Caleb, perished in the wilderness. Fronmiiller interprets : " He destroj'ed them the second time, and should be referred to two judgments of destruction ; once when the 'people, with the exception of a few, perished in the wilderness, and again to the Babylonish captivity,"' which seems to be more "forced" and "unnatural" than the explanation which he rejects. Notice here Jude's independence of Peter. He takes a new example. In the corresponding part of his Second Epistle, chapter 2, Peter sa^'s nothing of the kind, but takes an example from the history of the flood. Believed not— trusted not in their Divine Deliverer from Egypt, but murmured and fell into immorality. On the nature of faith, see on 1 Peter 1 : 5, and respecting the word ' believe,' see on 1 Peter 1 : 8. See also Heb. 3 : 18,19. This example of punishment is intended partly (ver. 20, 21), not wholly, as a warning to Christians. It is also intended to assure Christians that the immoral heretics will be punished. Thus it serves as an en- couragement as well as a warning. 6. Second cvample, having the same object as the first. Angels — not the angels, a con- trast with men, referred to in ver. 5 ; yet not all angels, for a limitation is made by the clause which follows. First estate — cor- rectly, as in the Revised Version, their own princijyality. In the Greek there is but one word {or first estate, and that meaning, liter- ally, what is first, whether in time or place. Here it refers either to their original state, or their original position : if the former, it must mean their sinlessness and bliss ; if the latter, their honor or dominion. Both may be in- cluded. Inquisitiveness would desire a more definite statement. Some poets, as Milton, Dante, Mrs. Browning, and others sing as if knowing much concerning such high things, but inspired men must be silent where it is permitted poets to strike the harp with a bold hand. Some who are not poets presume t6 know too much to believe that there are any angels whatever. Kept not. They could have kept; there was no compulsion. But left. They could have remained. 'But' left — not and left; and therefore this clause does not express another distinct act, but it defines the act expressed in the first clause. Yet it adds something to the thought, for the first is negative, while this is positive. Their own habitation — their proper habitation. The Greek for their own {iavriov), before first estate, is not the same as here (iStoi'), and it is desirable to indicate it by the use of a dif- ferent word, as proper, though this term is a little ambiguous. By ' habitation,' heaven may be meant, perhaps the dwelling place especially theirs in heaven. If the latter is the meaning, the nature of the wrong here also is not described. Compare the corre- sponding 2 Peter 2: 4, where angels are said to have sinned. Though in Peter the repre- sentation is more general, it is more easily understood. Jude gives particulars, and for that very reason his meaning is less obvious. Hath reserved — hath kept, which brings out the contrast more clearlj^: they kept not; God has kept them. The perfect tense takes the readers back to the time of the wrong doing, and brings them forward to the wri- ter's day. They have been kept through the entire period. In everlasting chains n-nder darkness. Veter: chains of darkness. Jude adds the idea expressed in everlasting. Par- rar, in harmony with his erroneous interpre- tation of 1 Peter 3: 19, 20, "preached unto the spirits in prison," makes 'everlasting' (oiSiois) express a limited period, though aflirming, at the satne time, that it is stronger than eternal or everlasting (aiuwos) . The lat- ter word occurs in the very important passage, Matt. 25: 46. The 'chains' (bonds) can never be broken; no restoration, therefore. 'Dark- ness,' of hell. (Matt. 25 : 30, 41.) The great day — the day of general judgment, when the 12 JUDE. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giviug themselves over to forni- cation, and goiug after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suifering the vengeance of eternal fire. cities about them, having in like manner with these giveu themselves over to toriiieation, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth ^as an example, sufter- 8 ing tte punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like 1 Or, at an example of eternal fire, etiffering puniilunent. fallen angels will be publicly judged. See "that great and notable day" (aci3 2:2o); "the great day of his wrath" (Rev.6:i7); "that great day of God Almighty." (Rev.ie-. u.) A great number will be gathered together, a division will be made, and from that division great results will follow. (Matt. 25: 32, 33, 34, 41.) See on the entire corresponding 2 Peter 2: 4. 7. Third example, with the same object as that of the two previous ones. As is related to iikeivise in the next verse. The two words express comparison between the inhabitants of the cities and "these filthy dreamers." Sodom and Gomorrah — situated, as the evi- dence thus far obtained serves to show, in a district at the southern end of the Dead Sea, not, as a recent writer has attempted to prove, at the northern end. The cities about {around) them — Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela. (Gen. 14:2; Deut. 29: 23.) A conima should Stand after them, but none after manner, which should be closely connected with the follow- ing clause. As in the Revised Version, with these should have appeared in the Common Version (the proper rendering of the Greek word TouTots in the text). In like manner with these — that is, the inhabitants of Gomorrah, etc., gave themselves over to fornication in the manner like that which characterized these. But who are meant by these is uncertain. Some say Sodom and Gomorrah, but these are included with the other cities in the sin. Others, as Farrar, refer it to the angels (ver. e), but that rests on a false interpretation of Gen. 6: 1, 2 — that the sons of God who took daughters of men for wives were angels. But, accord- ing to Farrar, Jude himself, "like the Jews of his day, attributed the fall of the angels to sensuality." Others refer it to the false teachers (ver. 4) mentioned also in ver. 8 as "these filthy dreamers." If the latter is the true reference, Jude anticipates what he is about to say, which is deemed by some as inadmissible. It is a question not easily de- cided, but the latter reference seems to be preferable. Giving themselves over — one word in the Greek, but a word of such strength that more than one word in the English is necessary to express the idea. It implies a thorough and continued abandonment to lust. And (yet more) going {away) after. They went fearfully' out of the right way. Strange. "The Greek," says Dr. Lillie, "occurs ninety-eight times, but it is nowhere else translated 'strange.' " They went after other flesh. The disgusting forms of licentiousness here referred to are mentioned in Gen. 19: 4 6; Lev. 18: 22, 23; Eom. 1: 24, 26, 27; and no facts of history are more strongly attested than that they greatly prevailed in Rome and Greece. There is reason to believe that al- most the entire heathen world were sunk in similar pollution at the time of Christ's birth. Would that such painful proofs of the fall of man could not be gathered from Christian countries! Are set forth. The original is striking: lie before — that is, lie before our eyes. Compare with 2 Peter 2: 6 ("making them an ensample"). To lie before is ex- plained by Fronmuller thus: "The Dead Sea is to this day a testimony of that catastrophe; ruins of the sunken cities were perhaps still visible in the days of Jude." [ ! ] But Ben- gel says: "The cities, therefore, were situ- ated, not in the Dead Sea, but upon the shore." Even Huther speaks of the Dead Sea as "ccmtinually testifying to the punish- ment inflicted." De Wette, in Fronmiiller, says that "subterranous fire is presumed [!] to be beneath the sea that covers the cities." To the notion, so common, that the cities stood where the Dead Sea is, the Scriptures give no support, and geological considerations lead to the belief that the Dead Sea must have had existence long before the time of Abra- ham. In the destruction of the cities the Scriptures assign no agency to water, but at- tribute their overthrow to fire; and unless scientific investigation shall show it to be otherwise, the view must continue to be held that the district oii the south of the Dead Sea bears marks which corroborate the theory that that is the spot where the cities stood. The cities lie before us in history. For an example. Some connect with eternal fire {as an example of eternal fire). So the mar- JUDE. 13 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil ol' dignities. 9 Yet Micliael the archangel, when contending witli the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst manner these also in their dreamings defile the Mesli, and set at nought douiiniou, and rail at 9 1 dignities, liut Michael the archangel, when con- teuUing with the devil he disputed about the body of 1 Or. gloria. giiial reading of the Revised Version. It is better to connect with 'set forth.' The next clause expresses what the men who inhabited the cities are suffering in the other world. The vengeance {or punishment) of eternal lire— the fire of hell, and this they have been suffering from the time of the first visitation of divine wrath. See on 2 Peter 2: 6. 8-16. The False Teachers Described. 8. Likewise, connecting with "as" in ver. 7, introduces comparison of the dreamers of this verse with the sinners of that verse. But again our translators fail to translate. In the Greek is a word meaning nevertheless, and this indicates the failure of the false teachers to profit by the example lying before them in the destruction of the cities. Vet (in like manner) do also these, etc. Filthy — unneces- sarily supplied, in italics. Dreamers — liter- ally, dremning. The word stands in close relation to both the clauses that follow, but they are not represented as doing three dis- tinct and co-ordinate things: 1. Dreaming; 2. Defiling the flesh and despising dominion ; 3. Speaking evil of dignities. They are in a state which is represented as dreaming, and while in that state or being in that state, they do the things specified. Of these men as dreaming different views have been taken. All explanations which assume that dream- ing in sleep is intended are to be rejected. It must be taken as a figurative word intended to express baseless, incoherent imaginings with respect to religious things, and which are unworthy the name of principles. Defile the flesh — of others and of themselves. It has its explanation in the fearful description of the cities, (ver. 7.) See a similar descrip- tion in Isa. 56 ; 10, 11. Despise dominion — the same thought as Peter expresses in 2 Peter 2: 10, but the verbs are not the same, Jude's being the stronger. Speak evil of dignities — the same in Peter. See on the entire par- allel verse. This verse might be deemed a remarkably cori^ct description of Mormon- ism. 9. Yet (6?