NOTES ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE

1. On the general form of Jude’s Address see notes on 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1, and Introductions to 1 and 2 Pet., pp. 79, 219. Jude has, in common with 2 Peter, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δでるたοおみくろんῦλος, a similarly general description of those to whom the Epistle is directed, the verb πληθυνθείη, and the word εいぷしろんἰρήνη, which, however, is here combined with ἔλεος and ἀγάπη. If we suppose that 2 Peter is here copying Jude, we must also suppose either that he went back to 1 Peter for part of his formula, or that (as Professor Harnack thinks) he forged both addresses, but adopted a simpler and more archaic form than that of Jude. But the easier inference is that Jude followed Peter; indeed, this is a necessary conclusion, if it is allowed that Jude here uses Pauline phrases.

Five personages of the name of Jude occur in apostolic or sub-apostolic times. (1) Judas Iscariot. (2) The Apostle Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου, Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13; John 14:22; this “son of James” is commonly identified with Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus. (3) Judas, the Lord’s brother, brother also of James, Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3, where he is named last or last but one. (4) Judas Barsabbas, Acts 15:22-33. (5) Judas, the last Jewish bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian, Eus. H.E. iv. 5. 3.

The author of our Epistle gives two descriptions of himself —(1)Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δでるたοおみくろんῦλος: (2)ἀδελφὸς δでるたεいぷしろん Ἰσκώβου. The first does not mean that he was an apostle (see note on 2 Peter 1:1), and ver. 17 is generally understood to mean that he did not so regard himself. His brother James also was not an apostle. The second identifies our Jude with the brother of the Lord.

But why does he not call himself the brother of the Lord? Clement of Alexandria in his commentary, which still exists in a Latin version, answered the question thus—“Judas, qui catholicam scripsit epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph exstans ualde religiosus et cum sciret propinquitatem domini, non tamen dicit se ipsum fratrem eius esse, sed quid dixit? Judas seruus Jesu Christi utpote domini, frater autem Jacobi.” Zahn (Einleitung, ii. p. 84) adopts this explanation, which is probably correct. The sense is, “Jude, the slave, I dare not say the brother, of Jesus Christ, but certainly the brother of James.”

The description, “brother of James,” cannot have been needed as an introduction or recommendation, for the brethren of the Lord were all held in high esteem (Acts 1:14). Certainly Jude must have been well known to the people whom he is addressing. Nor can the description be taken to show that he is writing to Churches of Palestine or to Jewish Christians, by whom St. James was held in special honour. For, apart from the fact that St. James would not need his help, the brethren of the Lord were known to the Gentile Churches, for instance, to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:5), and may quite possibly have visited and preached in Corinth.

τたうοおみくろんῖς ἐνにゅー θしーたεいぷしろんῷ πατρί … κλητοῖς. “To the Called, which in God the Father are beloved and kept unto Jesus Christ.” The Father is our Father. Κλητοῖς is a substantive, as in Romans 1:6; 1 Corinthians 1:24. The word is not used by Peter in either of his Epistles, and belongs to the Pauline vocabulary; the same thing is true of ἅγιοι, ver. 3; ψυχικοί and πぱいνにゅーεいぷしろんῦμみゅーαあるふぁ, ver. 19. Ἐνにゅー can hardly mean “by” for the preposition appears to be never to denote the agent. Nor is it possible to translate “who in God are beloved by me and kept unto Jesus Christ” because both participles must be reffered to the same agent. Yet again, there is no instance of ἐνにゅー Θしーたεいぷしろんῷ being used in that general sense which belongs to ἐνにゅー Κυρίῳ or ἐνにゅー χριστῷ in the Pauline Epistles (unless 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1 are in point), and,even if there were, the sense required, “who in God are beloved by God” is not obtained without difficulty. But this seems to be the meaning. In ver. 21 St. Jude has ἑαυτοὺς ἐνにゅー ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε. St. Peter does not speak of the love of God, and her again we may possibly detect the same affinity between St. Paul and St. Jude that has already appeared in the word κかっぱλらむだηいーたτたうοおみくろんῖς.

The variants τたうοおみくろんῖς ἔθνεσιν τたうοおみくろんῖς ἐνにゅー Θしーたεいぷしろんῷ and τたうοおみくろんῖς ἐνにゅー Θしーたεいぷしろんῷ πατρὶ ἡγιασμένοις have very little support. The letter was probably suggested by the embarrassment of the text; the former shows that at an early date the recipients of the Epistle were thought to have been Gentiles.

The Epistle cannot have been meant for the Church at large. It is directed to some group of Churches in which St. Jude was personally interested, and called forth by definite and peculiar circumstances.

3. ἀγαπητοί … πίστει. “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to do battle for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” With πぱいᾶσしぐまαあるふぁνにゅー σπουδὴνにゅー ποιούμενος compare the language of 2 Peter 1:5, 2 Peter 1:10, 2 Peter 1:15, 2 Peter 1:3:14. These repeated phrases have caught St. Jude’s ear.

ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι is not used elsewhere in the New Testament; the preposition merely strengthens the verb, but the simple ἀγωνίζεσθαι. is as strong a word as could be found. For παραδοθείς cf. Acts 16:4; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Corinthians 11:15:3; 2 Peter 2:21; Spitta thinks that the use of the word here is suggested by this last passage.

ἃγιοι. “The saints” is here another name for Christians, as in Acts 9:13, Acts 9:32, Acts 9:41; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 6:10; Revelation 5:8, but the word is not used as a substantive by Mark, Luke, John (in Gospel or Epistles), James, or Peter. See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 56, 57. Ἡ πίαρις, in defence of which men are to contend, is not trust or the inner light, but a body of doctrine, dogmatic and practical, which is given to them by authority, is fixed and unalterable, and well known to all Christians. It is “your most holy faith,” ver. 20, a foundation on which the readers are to build themselves up. It combined intellectual and moral truth. See Sanday and Headlam on Romans 1:17. It had been attacked by men who turned the grace of our God into lasciviousness, that is to say, by Antinomians; but these men were mockers, ver. 18, and, from the emphasis with which Jude introduces his quotation from Enoch, ver. 14, we may presume that they mocked at the Parousia.

Jude’s language about the Faith is highly dogmatic, highly orthodox, highly zealous. His tone is that of a bishop of the fourth century. The character may be differently estimated, but its appearance at this early date, before Montanism and before Gnosticism, is of great historical significance. Men who used such phrases believed passionately in a creed.

Lachmann, and some of the older school of commentators, placed a comma after ὑμみゅーῖνにゅー, and took πぱいεいぷしろんρろーὶ τたうῆς κかっぱοおみくろんιいおたνにゅーῆς ἡμみゅーῶνにゅー σωτηρίας with γράψαι: but recent scholars generally reject this unnatural punctuation.

St. Jude says that he had been busy with, or intent upon, writing to his people πぱいεいぷしろんρろーὶ τたうῆς κかっぱοおみくろんιいおたνにゅーῆς σωτηρίας an ordinary pastoral Epistle dealing with general topics of instruction and exhortation, but found it necessary to change his plan and utter this stirring cry to arms. Evidently he is referring to some definite and unexpected circumstance. News had been brought to him of the appearance of the false teachers; possibly he had just received 2 Peter; if so, we can understand the use which he makes of that Epistle.

De Wette, Brückner, Spitta, Zahn think that the writing referred to by the γράφειν was not an ordinary Epistle, but a treatise of some considerable length; but the age was hardly one of treatises, and there is nothing in the text to support the idea.

4. παρειαέδυσαν γάρ. “For certain men have crept in privily, who of old were appointed in scripture unto this doom.” Γάρ introduces the reason of ἀνάγκην ἓσχον. For παρεισέδυσαν B has παρεισεδύησαν, a vulgar form; see Blass, p. 43. The aorist is here not distinguishable in sense from the perfect; as to the meaning of the compound verb, refer to note on παρειγειν, 2 Peter 2:1. Πάλαι is most naturally taken to mean in the Old Testament, in the many denunciations of false prophets. The word, however, does not always denote a long interval of time; hence Zahn and Spitta would render, “who were some time ago appointed in a writing for this doom,” and find here a direct reference to 2 Peter 2:3. But though the Greeks (more especially the poets; see references in Liddell and Scott) sometimes use πάλαι in a loose colloquial way, just as we use “long ago” of things that happened quite recently, we must not give the word this sense without good reason. Jude could hardly have spoken of 2 Peter as written πάλαι, unless he were looking back over a space of twently or thirty years. Unless we are to suppose that the two Epistles were separated by such an interval as this, the explanation of Zahn and Spitta can hardly be adopted.

Nevertheless we have here a reference to 2 Peter 2:3. As used by Jude, κρίμα has no meaning, for he has entirely omitted to say what the doom is. The best explanation of this curious difficulty is that he was writing in haste, with 2 Peter fresh in his mind, and that his words are suggested by οおみくろんἷς τたうὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οおみくろんὐκかっぱ ἀργεῖ in the Petrine passage. If this be so, we have here one of the strongest proofs of the posteriority of Jude.

Some support for this view may be found in the weakness of the various explanations which have been found for κρίμα. Wiesinger, Hofmann, Schott find the key in παρεισέδυσαν, they have wickedly crept in, and this is their judgment. But, we must answer, the creeping in is their sin, not their punishment. Zahn also (Einleitung, ii. 80) goes back for his solution to the main verb; they have crept in, and their appearance is a judgment, not on them, but on the Church, inasmuch as it will lead to a sifting out of bad Christians from among the good. Cf. John 9:39, εいぷしろんἰς κρίμα ἐγがんまὼ εいぷしろんἰς τたうὸνにゅー κόσμον ἦλθον, ἵνにゅーαあるふぁ οおみくろんἱ μみゅーὴ βλέποντες βλέπωσι, κかっぱαあるふぁὶ οおみくろんἱ βλέποντες τたうυうぷしろんφふぁいλらむだοおみくろんὶ γένωνται: the reader may refer to Westcott’s note upon this passage. But it seems evident that here the κρίμα is one which hangs over the intruders themselves. Huther found the explanation of κρίμα in the ἀπώλεσεν of ver. 5: but this verb stands much too far off, and does not directly apply to the evildoers in question; further, if this had been the writer’s meaning, we should have expected γάρ, not δέ, after ὑπομνῆσしぐまαあるふぁιいおた. Spitta finds it in the words ἀσεβεῖς … ἀρνούμενοι: their judgment is that they are impious and deny the Lord. But here again impiety and denial are sins, not sentences. It may be replied that sin may be regarded as its own punishment, but this idea certainly does not belong to Jude. Not one of these views is satisfactory. Each commentator destroys the opinion of others without establishing his own, and we are really driven to suppose that St. Jude, in his hurry, picked out St. Peter’s word without observing that it required an explanation.

χάριτα. The grace is the πίστις, or the gospel (1 Peter 1:10); it promises a freedom which these impious men turn into lasciviousness.

τたうὸνにゅー μόνον δεσπότην κかっぱαあるふぁὶ Κύριον ἡμみゅーῶνにゅー Ἰησοῦνにゅー χριστὸνにゅー ἀρνούμενοι. Cf. 2 Peter 2:1, τたうὸνにゅー ἀγοράσασαντα αあるふぁὐτたうοおみくろんὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι. St. Peter’s phrase is certainly the finer, and is probably the original: it is marked by his favourite iambic rhythm; the ἀγοράσαντα explains and limits δεσπότην, and here, as in other passages to be noticed as we proceed, Jude has a tendency to exaggerate and harden the thought of St. Peter. Τたうὸνにゅー μόνον δεσπότην is so strong a phrase that it has been regarded as impossible. Hence K L P and several other authorities, followed by the textus receptus, insert Θεόν after δεσπότην: and many commentators, who do not accept this reading, yet translate in the same sense, “the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ.” But this misrendering is needless. If Christ may be called δεσπότης, He may also be called μόνος δεσπότης in distinction not from the Father, but from all false masters. Cf. note on ver. 25.

5. ὑπομνῆσしぐまαあるふぁιいおた. cf. 2 Peter 1:12, ὑπομιμνήσκειν. 1:15. μνήμην πぱいοおみくろんιいおたεいぷしろんῖσθαι: 1:13, 3:1, διεγείρειν ἐνにゅー ὐͅοιννσευ See note on σπουδήν, ver. 3. Either Peter has caught up and reiterated certain unimportant words from Jude, or Jude had read the first chapter of the Petrine Epistle and adopts from it words which, from their iteration there, were likely to catch the ear. The latter is the more probable view. Jude exhibits manifest tokens of haste, abbreviation, and confusion. A glance back at the preceding Epistle will show that St. Peter uses “remind” quite naturally, where he is recalling to the memory of his readers lessons that they had certainly often been taught. Jude “reminds” his people of the instances of judgment, none of which belonged to the catechism, and some of which, at least the story of Michael, may have been quite new to them. The δέ also is difficult. Probably we must find the antithesis in ἀσεβεῖς and ἀρνούμενοι : they are impious and deny the Lord, “but” God punishes such men. Certainly the sense is more clearly unfolded in 2 Peter; and this is a remarkable fact, because Jude is the more skilful writer of the two.

εいぷしろんἰδότας ἅπぱいαあるふぁξくしー πάντα. “Though once for all ye know all things.” But the things which Christians know once for all are those which are included in “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” not historical instances of God’s wrath. Here again we have a confused reminiscence of καίπερ εいぷしろんἰδότας 2 Peter 1:12, where the words are quite intelligible.

For the comparison between the instances of Judgment as they are given in the two Epistles, see Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 221. The first instance, that of the destruction of the sinful Israelites in the desert, is peculiar to Jude. It reminds us of Heb_3:18-2; 1 Corinthians 10:5-11. Its introduction here disturbs the strictly chronological order of the instances given in 2 Peter.

ὃτたうιいおた ὀ κύριος. “That the Lord, when He had brought the people safe out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them which believed not.” By “the Lord” is no doubt meant Christ, cf. 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Corinthians 10:9. With τたうὸ δεύτερον cf. δευτερον, 1 Corinthians 12:28; ἐκかっぱ δευτέρον, Hebrews 9:28. Here it marks a strong contrast, and sharpens the point of the warning. “It is true that the Lord saved Israel from Egypt; yet notwithstanding He afterwards slew the faithless. So he has saved you, but so also He may slay you.”

The text of the verse is uncertain. א K L insert a second ὐμみゅーᾶς after εいぷしろんἰδότας. א, many Fathers, and versions place ἅπぱいαあるふぁξくしー after Κύριος (Θεός). For πάντα K L and others read τたうοおみくろんῦτたうοおみくろん. K L and many others have ὁ Κύριος· א C Κύριος A B and many versions with Didymus and Jerome Ἰησοῦς, and there is some inferior authority for ὁ Θεός. The second ὑμみゅーᾶς is probably a mere slip; the transposition of ἅπぱいαあるふぁξくしー may be due to a desire to provide an antecedent for τたうὸ δεύτερον though, if so, it involves a grammatical error, as ἅπぱいαあるふぁξくしー, cannot mean “firstly.” Τたうοおみくろんῦτたうοおみくろん for πάτα is again a slip, or an attempt at emendation. The variants Θεός and Ἰησοῦς for Κύροις are also emendations; the copyists did not feel quite certain what Jude meant.

6. ἀγγέλους. The Second Instance; the Fallen Angels.

“And the angels who kept not their own principality, but forsook their proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude probably found σしぐまεいぷしろんιいおたρろーαあるふぁῖς in his copy of 2 Peter (see note on the corresponding passage), but it is just possible that he remembered to have read of “bonds” in Enoch. Ἀίδιος (it is an Aristotelian word, while αあるふぁἰώιος is Platonist) occurs also in Romans 1:20. The absence of the article with ἀγγέλους is of no consequence, the particular angels being defined by the following article and participles, cf. 1 Peter 1:10.

The principality of the angels is the special government or province intrusted to them by God. The passage which lay at the foundation of Jewish belief on this point is Deuteronomy 32:8, ὅτεδιεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθしーたνにゅーηいーた, ὠς διέσπειρεν υうぷしろんἱοおみくろんὺς Ἀδάμ, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθしーたνにゅーῶνにゅー κかっぱαあるふぁτたうὰ ἀριθμὸνにゅー ἀγγέλων Θしーたεいぷしろんοおみくろんῦ, κかっぱαあるふぁὶ ἐγενήθη μみゅーεいぷしろんρろーὶς Κυρίου λらむだαあるふぁὸς αあるふぁὐτたうοおみくろんῦ Ἰακώβ—where κかっぱαあるふぁτたうὰ ἀριθμὸνにゅー ἀγγέλων Θしーたεいぷしろんοおみくろんῦ represent Hebrew words which in A.V. and R.V. are rendered “according to the number of the children of Israel.” The passage was taken to mean that God assigned the government of the several nations to guardian angels. Probably this view was older than the Septuagint, for there are many indications in the Old Testament that the gods of the nations were regarded as wicked angels. There was also another tradition that the seven planets were ruled by the seven chiefs of the angels of service. The planets, wandering stars (see below, ver. 13), were wicked stars, because they had broken loose from their appointed station. Hence their angels were punished. Enoch 18. 13 sqq., “And what I saw there was horrible—seven stars like great burning mountains, and like spirits, which besought me. The Angel said, This is the place where heaven and earth terminate; it serves as a prison for the stars of heaven and the host of heaven. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of God before their rising, because they did not come forth at the appointed time. And He was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated in the year of the mystery.” Cf. Enoch 21:2 sqq. Jude says that they are bound “till the judgment of the great day.” This phrase also is suggested by Enoch, where we find ἕως τたうῆς κρίεως τたうῆς μωγάλης, μέχρις ὴμέρας κρίεως τたうῆς μεγάλης (ed. Charles, pp. 85, 86. see also Gfrörer, Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 394; Harnack’s note on Hermas, Sim. 8. 3:3). According to these traditions the sin of the fallen angels was pride or disobedience. This is the view adopted by Origen, in Ezech. Hom. ix. 2 (Lomm. i. 12 1), “Inflatio, superbia, arrogantia, peccatum diaboli est; et ob haec delicta ad terras migrauit de coelo.”

By the side of these ran another stream of tradition based on Gen. 6., according to which the sin of the fallen angels was lust. Justin, Apol. ii. 5, combines both, οおみくろんἰ δでるたʼ ἄγγελοι, παραβάντες τήνδε τたうὴνにゅー τάξυν, γυναικῶνにゅー μίξεσιν ἠττήθησαν.

St. Peter does not specify the sin of the fallen angels, but he is evidently referring to their ἀσέλγειαι. St. Jude is not content with a passing allusion; he develops and confuses it. When he says that the angels forsook their proper habitation (came down from heaven to earth), he is thinking of Gen_6.; when he says that they kept not their own principality, of Deuteronomy 32:8. Yet after all he has not made his point clear. For how could either the false teachers or their victims be said μみゅーὴ τηρῆσしぐまιいおた τたうὴνにゅー ἑαυτῶνにゅー ἀρχήν?

7. The Third Instance; the Cities of the Plain.

Jude omits the Deluge, and here does not mention Lot.

ωおめがσしぐま̔ς Σόδομα κかっぱαあるふぁὶ Γοίμουρρα κかっぱαあるふぁὶ αあるふぁἰ περὶ αあるふぁὐτたうὰς πόλεις. The other cities were Admah and Zeboim, Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8. There were five cities of the plain, but Zoar was spared. Τたうὸνにゅー ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, “like these fallen angels”; here at last the ἀσέλγεια is brought out. The compound ἐκπορνεύειν is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, but is used by the LXX. in Genesis 38:24 and elsewhere. The ἐκかっぱ may, as Hofmann thinks, add the notion of going outside the moral law. In ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπόσω σしぐまαあるふぁρろーκかっぱὸς ἐτέρας we have another illustration of the manner in which Jude used 2 Peter. The latter has (2:10) τたうοおみくろんὺς ὀπίσω σしぐまαあるふぁρろーκかっぱὸς ἐνにゅー ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους. Jude has caught up this phrase, but by adding ἑτέρας has made it refer to the sin connected with the name of Sodom,—a sin which, though horribly common in heathen Greece and Rome, was never alleged against teachers who could in any sense be called Christians. The language of 2 Peter 2:6, 2 Peter 2:10 is greatly exaggerated here. Further, St. Peter does not fall into the error of saying that the sin of Sodom was like that of the angels, for the fallen angels could not be said ἀπελθεῖνにゅー ὀπίσω σしぐまαあるふぁρろーκかっぱὸς ἑτέρας.

δでるたεいぷしろんῖγがんまμみゅーαあるふぁ (here only in the New Testament) properly means “a sample” or “specimen”; it is here used in the sense of the classical παράδειγμα or the later ὑπόδειγμα (2 Peter 2:6), “a pattern,” or “example,” or “warning.” Πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς αあるふぁἰωνίου is best taken with δίκην: “they are set forth as a warning, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude omits all mention of Lot, fixing his mind only on the divine vengeance, and here again sharpens and hardens the words of St. Peter, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖνにゅー τεθεικώς.

8. οおみくろんὗτたうοおみくろんιいおた, the false teachers of ver. 4. Ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι, “to dream.” Their dreams may be those of prophecy; these false teachers being also false prophets (2 Peter 2:1), who support their evil doctrines by pretended revelations; cf. Deuteronomy 13:1, Deuteronomy 13:3, Deuteronomy 13:5. This explanation is favoured by von Soden and Spitta, and is much the best. Or possibly, as some hold, “dream” may be used in the sense of “vain imagination.” The difficulty is that, though the Latin somnium is used in this sense, the Greek ἐνύπνιον is not. Nevertheless this is the interpretation of Clement of Alexandria, Strom. iii. 2. II, ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι (ὃ γがんまὰρろー ὓπαρ τたうῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἐπιβαλλουσιν). Ἐπιβἀλλουσιν most probably means “attack,” and ὀ should be corrected to οおみくろんὐ. So also Adumb. in Ep. Judae, “hi somniantes, hoc est, qui somniant imaginatione sua libidines et reprobas cupiditates.” The meaning involved in the “filthy dreamers” of the A.V. may be confidently rejected, because, as Alford points out, the participle belongs not only to σάρκα μιαίνουσι, but equally to κυριότητα ἀθετοῦοおみくろんιいおた and δでるたὀξας βλασφημοῦσしぐまιいおた.

σしぐまἀρろーκかっぱαあるふぁ μιαίουσι. Here Jude is adapting 2 Peter 2:10, and the passages should be carefully compared. Peter says, “the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of trial, and keep the unjust under punishment till the day of judgment, but especially those who walk after the flesh … and despise lordship. Self-willed daring ones, they fear not to blaspheme dignities.” He has passed away from Sodom, and is speaking of the False Teachers; it is they who despise lordship and rail at dignities. Jude says that the false teachers are like the people of the cities of the plain in that they despise lordship and blaspheme dignities. But it is only by a great effort of exegesis that we can fasten these two charges on the people of Sodom. Jude has abbreviated and confused his text. For κυριότης and δでるたοおみくろんξくしーαあるふぁ see notes on 2 Peter.

9. ὁ δでるたὲ Μιχαήλ. “But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a sentence of blasphemy, but said, May the Lord rebuke thee.” That is to say, “may the Lord rebuke thee for thy blasphemy.” Peter says that the angels will not bring against dignities “a railing accusation” (βλάσφημον κρίσιν), which is quite a different thing. See Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 217. Διακρίνεσθαι is used here in its proper sense, “to get a dispute decided,” “contend with an adversary in a court of law.” The dative διαβόλῳ is governed by διελέγετο. For κρίσις see 2 Peter 2:11. Ἐπιτιμήσαι is, of course, optative.

The incident is taken by St. Jude from the Assumption of Moses, as we are informed by Clement of Alexandria (Adumb. in Ep. Judae), Origen (de Princ. iii. 2. 1), and Didymus. The passage as given, perhaps loosely, by a Scholiast on Jude (text in Hilgenfeld, Nouum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum, i. p. 128) runs thus: τελευτήσαντος ἐνにゅー τたうῷ ὄρろーεいぷしろんιいおた Μωυσέως ὁ ἀρχάγγελος Μみゅーιいおたχかいαあるふぁὴλらむだ ἀποστέλλεται μεταθήσων τたうὸ σしぐまῶμみゅーαあるふぁ. ὁ μみゅーὲνにゅー οおみくろんὖνにゅー διάβολος ἀνにゅーτたうεいぷしろんῖχかいεいぷしろん θέλων ἀπατῆσしぐまαあるふぁιいおた, λέγων ὅτたうιいおた ἐμみゅーοおみくろんὶ τたうὸ σしぐまῶμみゅーαあるふぁ ὡς τたうῆς ὕλης δεσπόζοντι, ἤτたうοおみくろんιいおた δでるたιいおたὰ τたうὸ πατάξαι τたうὸνにゅー Αあるふぁἰγύπτιον βλασφημοῦντος κかっぱαあるふぁτたうὰ τたうοおみくろんῦ ἁγίου κかっぱαあるふぁὶ φονέα ἀναγορεύσαντος· μみゅーὴ ἐνεγκὼνにゅー τたうὴνにゅー κかっぱαあるふぁτたうὰ τたうοおみくろんῦ ἁγίου βλασφημίαν ὁ ἄγγελοσἙπιτιμησαι σしぐまοおみくろんιいおた ὁ Θεός, πぱいρろーὸς τたうὸνにゅー διάβολον ἔφふぁいηいーた. Here we see from ἀποστέλλεται that the dispute did not occur in the presence of the Lord; hence Jude omits St. Peter’s πぱいαあるふぁρろーὰ Κυρίῳ : again the meaning of βλασφημίας κρίσις comes out very clearly. Satan blasphemed Moses, claiming his body as that of a murderer. Michael would not tolerate his sin of blasphemy against the saint, yet abstains from openly charging him with blasphemy. The date of the Assumption is variously given; but as it was probably used by St. Paul in Galatians 3:19, where Moses is called the μεσίτης of the law (the phrase in the Assumption as quoted by Gelasius Cyz. Acta Syn. Nicaen. ii. 18, p. 28, is τたうῆς διαθήκης μεσίτην : in the existing Latin version arbiter testamenti), it is also probably considerably older than that Epistle. Hilgenfeld thinks that it was written after 44 a.d.; others place it as early as 2 b.c. It is possible that Jude refers to the Assumption again in ver. 16.

10. οおみくろんὗτたうοおみくろんιいおた δでるたἐ … φθείρονται. “But these rail at whatsoever things they know not; and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed (or corrupted),” R.V. The things that they know not are κυριότης, δόξα, and generally the world of spirit to which these conceptions belong; the things which they understand are fleshly delight. Jude has made the rough-hewn sentence of 2 Peter 2:12 much smoother and clearer; see also vers. 13 and 17. In particular he has corrected the awkward iteration of φふぁいθしーたοおみくろんρろーῖ φθοράν, φθειρονται, which is so characteristic of 2 Peter.

11. οおみくろんὐαあるふぁὶ αあるふぁὐτουῖς. Outside of the Gospels this phrase is used only in 1 Corinthians 9:16 and in the Apocalypse. It is rare in later writers, but occurs in a Fragment of Clement of Alexandria (Dindorf, vol. iii. p. 492), οおみくろんὐαあるふぁὶ δでるたὲ τたうοおみくろんῖς ἔχουσι κかっぱαあるふぁὶ ἐνにゅー ὐποκρισει λαμβάνουσι, which is quoted in the Didache.

Jude’s fourth instance is Cain, who is not introduced by Peter, and whose mention here has caused difficulty. De Wette and Arnaud thought that Cain here was a type of all wicked men. Schneckenburger, Spitta, von Soden, and Kühl (the last with some hesitation) appeal to the Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 4:7, where Cain is represented as the first sceptic and sophist, and as saying, “Non est iudicium nec iudex, nec est aliud saeculum, nec dabitur merces bona iustis, nec ultio sumetur de improbis, neque per miserationem creatus est mundus, neque per miserationem gubernatur.” The Targum is later than Jude; but the same idea is found in Philo, from whom it is possibly derived. See references in Siegfried. This explanation would give tolerable sense, but is much too artificial. The name Cain, standing as it does without qualification, must mean Cain the murderer. See Wisd. 10:3 (a passage which was probably in Jude’s mind as he wrote ver. 7), where Cain is “the unrighteous man who fell away from her (Wisdom) in his anger, and perished himself in the rage wherewith he slew his brother.” Hence Grotius, Oecumenius, and others rightly account for his introduction here by supposing Jude to mean that the false teachers murder men’s souls. “Cain,” says Grotius. “fratri uitam caducam ademit; illi fratribus adimunt aeternam.” The same language has often been used in later times. We have before noticed the fiery zeal of Jude, and his tendency to exaggerate; see vers. 3, 7, 23.

The fifth instance is Balaam, who appears in 2 Peter also. Jude devotes less space to him, and again darkens the picture. Peter charges Balaam only with covetousness; Jude says that for the sake of money (μισθοῦ, genitive of price) the false teachers fling themselves into the πλάνη of Balaam—that is to say, into the sin of Baal Peor (Num. 25., 31:8; Revelation 2:14). Hence the verb ἐξεχύθησαν, which, like the Latin effundi in, is used of those who pour themselves out, fling themselves into sensual indulgence. Jude does not press the charge of greed and extortion so strongly as 2 Peter; he barely alludes to it here and in ver. 16; in his eyes the covetousness of the false teachers is as nothing in comparison with their uncleanness.

The sixth instance is Korah, who is not mentioned in 2 Peter.

Korah “gainsaid” Moses and Aaron (Num_16.) because Moses by God’s command had restricted the priesthood to the family of Aaron. He despised not God’s ordinances generally (as Huther, Ritschl, Alford, Kühl think), but this particular ordinance. Jude must mean that those of whom he is speaking defied the authorities of the Church, and claimed the right to make rules for themselves. So he speaks of them just below as ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, in other words as making themselves their own presbyters; cf. 1 Peter 5:2. Here we find support for the explanation of δόξαι given on 2 Peter 2:10. The “dignities” whom these false teachers blaspheme were the rulers of the Church. We notice in this verse that Jude possesses a certain copia uerborum, three different nouns, ὁδός, πλάνη, ἀντιλογία, are coupled with three different verbs, πορευθῆνにゅーαあるふぁιいおた, ἐκξυθῆνにゅーαあるふぁιいおた, ἀπολέσθαι. It is clear that he was a better writer than 2 Peter, and in particular that he dislikes needless iteration. See on this point Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 225 sq.

12. οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー οおみくろんἱ ἐνにゅー τたうαあるふぁῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμみゅーῶνにゅー σπιλάδες. “These are they who are spots in your love feasts.” Ἀγάπαις is undoubtedly the right reading, though A; C; have ἀπταις, cf. 2 Peter 2:13. Οおみくろんἱ before σπιλάδες is given by A B L, but omitted by א K on account of the difficulty which it creates.

For the meaning of σπιλάς see Orpheus, Lithica, 614 (ed. G. Hermann), where the agate is described as κατάστικτος σπιλάδεσσι, “dappled with spots” (Tyrwhitt thought that this treatise was composed as late as the reign of Constantius, but there is no reason for suspecting that the author invented this use of the word); Hesychius, σπιλάδες· μεμιασμένοι. Thus the word is merely a variant for the σπίλοι of 2 Peter.

The R.V. translates “these are they that are hidden rocks,” following the Etym. Mag., which explains σπιλάδες by ὕφαλοι πέτραι. But in the Anthology, xi. 390, the two are expressly distinguished—φふぁいαあるふぁσしぐまὶ δでるたὲ κかっぱαあるふぁὶ νήεσσιν ἁλιπλανέεσσι χερείους τたうὰς ὑφάλους πέτρας τたうῶνにゅー φανερῶνにゅー σπολόδων and in Hom. Od. iii. the σπικάε of 298 are the same as the λらむだιいおたσしぐまσしぐまὴ αあるふぁἰπぱいεいぷしろんῖά τたうεいぷしろん εいぷしろんἰς ἅλらむだαあるふぁ πέτρν of 293. The epithet “hidden” therefore must be struck out, and with it the notion of a hidden danger. Further, σπιλάς means a rock, not only in the sea, or on the beach, but in land, see Soph. Trach. 678; Theocritus, Epigr. iv. 6. Thus the word does not include an allusion to shipwreck, not indeed to danger of any kind. Hence the statements of suidas,σπιλάδες· αί ἐνにゅー ὕδασι κかっぱοおみくろんῖλらむだαあるふぁιいおた πέτραι, and of Hesychius, σπιλάδες· αあるふぁἰ περιεχόμεναι, τたうῇ θαλάσσῃ πειτραι (this he gives as an alternative explanation), are not strictly accurate. Nor is the note of Oecumenius, αあるふぁἱ σπιλάδες τたうοおみくろんῖ πλέουσιν οおみくろん͂λέθριοι, ἀπροσδοκήτως ἐπιγτψνόμεσναι, to be taken for more than it is worth, as the expression of his own opinion.

σπιλάς is feminine, hence there is a difficulty in the masculine article οおみくろんἱ. We must supply either ὄντες or κεκλημένοι, and translate “these are the men who are spots,” or “these are the men who have been called spots.” The insertion of the article seems to show that Jude had in his mind some definite passage where these men or men like them had been actually spoken of as “spots.” Thus it becomes probable that he is here directly referring to 2 Peter 2:13. This is the opinion maintained by Spitta.

Dr. Chase dismisses this view with the remark that this (οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー οおみくろんἱ) is a regular form in apocalyptic literature. See for in stances Zechariah 1:10; Revelation 7:14, Revelation 7:11:4, Revelation 7:14:4; Enoch 46. 3; Apoc. Peiri, 4. 7. 9. 14. 15. 16. The remark is true, but does not meet the point. The form is not specially apocalyptic (see Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:17, and numberless other examples might be given from writings of all kinds). Either it points a reference to something that the readers know already, as in Revelation 11:4, ὁ͂υτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー αあるふぁἱ δύο ἐλらむだαあるふぁῖαあるふぁιいおた, “these are the two olive trees” that you have read of in Zechariah 4:3, or it answers the question, Who are these? identifying two known persons or classes of persons. But it does not convey fresh information about the persons. Thus οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー οおみくろんἱ βλασφμοῦντες τたうὴνにゅー ὁδでるたὸνにゅー τたうῆς δικαιοσύνης is “these are the men who blaspheme the way of righteousness” (οおみくろんὗτたうοおみくろんιいおた is subject). Jude is quite aware of this difference, and uses both forms correctly; thus we have, ver. 16, οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまοおみくろんνにゅー γογγυσταί, “these men are murmurers”; and on the other hand, οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー οおみくろんἱ πογεγραμμένοι, ver. 4, not οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおた πογεγραμμένοι Hence it is not probable that he would write οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー οおみくろんἱ σπιλάδες of for ουροί εいぷしろんοおみくろんἠοおみくろんιいおた σπιλάδες. He must mean either “these are the men whom everybody calls spots” or “these are the men whom some particular person has called so.” The latter is the more probable, and Spitta’s opinion may therefore well be defended. An objection might be raised on the ground of Revelation 14:4, οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー οおみくろんἵ μετὰ γυναικῶνにゅー οおみくろんὐκかっぱ ἐμολύνθησαν, παρθένοι γάρ εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー· οおみくろんὗτたうοおみくろんιいおた οおみくろんἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες τたうῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου ὐρνίῳ ὅπου ἃνにゅー ὑπάγῃ where no question has been distinctly asked; but even this case falls under the rule. The meaning is not “these men are virgins,” but “these men are the virgins,” whom you knew in the Church. There may again be a reference to some well-known phrase, for the second clause contains an apparent allusion to the familiar words “follow thou me.”

If we adopt the other rendering, “these are they that are rocks,” we must still regard the words as an allusion to some well-known passage. But none can be found. Πぱいεいぷしろんρろーὶ τたうὴνにゅー πίστιν ἐναυά γがんまηいーたσしぐまαあるふぁνにゅー, 1 Timothy 1:19, is much too vague.

συνευωχούμενοι. Cf. 2 Peter 2:13. σποίλοι κかっぱαあるふぁὶ μみゅーῶμみゅーοおみくろんιいおた, ἐντρυφῶντες ἐνにゅー τたうαあるふぁῖς ἀγάπαις αあるふぁὐτたうῶνにゅー συνευωχούμενοι ὑμみゅーῖνにゅー., St Peter means “while they share the feast with you.” Jude’s language may bear the same sense, but he seems rather to give συνευωχούμενοι a different turn, “while they carouse together,” by themselves. We may possibly infer from ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες and ἀποδιορίζοντες, ver. 19, that these men drew together at a separate part of the table, or even that they kept an Agape of their own; and the words ἐνにゅー τたうαあるふぁῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμみゅーῶνにゅー are not conclusive against the latter hypothesis, for they may mean “in the Agape of your community.” Certainly the language of St. Jude leads us to infer that the division was more clearly marked than we should gather from 2 Peter, and this point again makes in favour of the priority of the latter.

ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. “Shepherding themselves without fear.” Ἀφόβως must be taken with ποιμαίνονρες not with συνευωχούμενοι, with which it yields no good sense. Ποιμαίνειν is the verb which expresses the whole authority of Christ, or of the priest, over the flock. The instance of Korah, employed in ver. 2, shows that Jude is here thinking of the latter. These men defied the authority of their rulers, made themselves their own shepherds, and yet feared no harm. If we think of the way in which Balaam is mentioned in Revelation 2:14, it is tempting to suppose that one way in which they exhibited their lawlessness was by eating τたうὰ εいぷしろんἰδωλόθυτα at the Agape. Dr. Chase (article on Jude in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible) thinks there may be a reference here to Ezekiel 34:2, μみゅーὴ Βόσκουσιν ποιμένες ἑαυτούς.

νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπぱいὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι. Peter has πぱいηいーたγがんまαあるふぁιいおた ἄνυδροι κかっぱαあるふぁὶ ὀμίχλαι ὑπぱいὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι. Jude, using only one figure, he calls his opponents “Clouds which drop no water, and are blown past by winds.” From teachers we expect the beneficent rain of doctrine and example: these men are like clouds which give no rain and only hide the sun; they are blown past and seen no more. There is a weak variant περιφερόμεναι, “tossed about” an image of instability; the word is possibly suggested by Ephesians 4:14.

δένδρα φθινοπωρινά. The epithet means more than autumnal. Φθυνόπωρον means not autumn, the season of fruit (τεθαλυῖαあるふぁ ὀπώρη: autumnus from augeo), but the “fall of the year,” the season just before winter, when growth has stopped, and the branches are bare. We may translate “trees in the fall” or even “trees in winter.” Ἀκαρπα is probably suggested by οおみくろんὐκかっぱ ἀργοὺς οおみくろんὐδでるたὲ ακάρπους, 2 Peter 1:8. Δでるたὶς ἀποθανόντα, “twice dead,” not only fruitless, but actually dead and incapable of bearing fruit; or not only dead, but uprooted; or, again, St. Jude may be thinking of these men no longer as trees, but as Christians; they were dead once in trespasses and sins, now again they have died by apostasy. If this last explanation is tenable, St. Jude may have been thinking of 2 Peter 1:9, 2 Peter 2:20, and strengthening the expression. Ἐκριζωθέντα, they are already cut off from their root; the root is either the Church (ἀποδιορίζοντες) or Christ.

13. κύματα … αあるふぁἰσχύνας “Wild waves of the sea, foaming up their own shames.” The language is tinctured by reminiscences of Greek poetry; cf. Moschus, Idyll. v. 5, ἁ δでるたὲ θάλασσα κかっぱυうぷしろんρろーτたうὸνにゅー ἐπαφρίζῃ: Euripides, Herc. Fur. 851, θάλασσαν ἀγρίαν, but the image is probably suggested by Isaiah 57:20.

ἀστέρες πぱいλらむだαあるふぁνにゅーῆτたうαあるふぁιいおた. See note on ver. 6. We find an allusion to the sin of the planets also in Isaiah 14:12, where the king of Babylon is compared to the Day-star, son of the morning, who fell through pride. St. Jude here gives a more correct turn to the imagery than St. Peter, who speaks of springs and mists as punished by darkness, though at the same time he has departed somewhat from Enoch, who saw the stars of heaven imprisoned in a place of fire.

14. προεφήτευσε δでるたὲ κかっぱαあるふぁὶ τούτοις. “But Enoch prophesied to these men also”; his words strike them as well as others.

ἕβδομος ἀπぱいὸ Ἀδάμ. Gen_5.; Enoch lx. 8, xciii. 3; Book of Jubilees, 7. The quotation which follows is a combination of passages from Enoch. “And, lo, He comes with ten thousand of His holy ones to execute judgment upon them; and He will destroy the ungodly, and will convict all flesh of all that the sinners and ungodly have wrought and ungodly committed against Him,” 1:9; “Ye have slanderously spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness,” 5:4; cf. also 27:2: the translation here given is that of Mr. Charles.

The earlier Fathers regarded this passage as showing that Enoch was inspired; Clement of Alexandria, Adumb, in Ep. Judae, “his verbis prophetiam comprobat”; Tertullian, de cultu fem. i. 3, “eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet.” In the time of Jerome many viewed it as a proof that Jude was not inspired, de uir. ill. 4, “et quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonium a plerisque reiicitur.” Augustine still held the more ancient and liberal view, de ciuitate dei, xv. 23, “scripsisse quidem nonnulla diuina Enoch illum septimum ab Adam negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistula canonica Judas apostolus dicat.”

After inserting this passage from Enoch, which speaks so distinctly of the coming of the Lord to judgment, St. Jude may have felt that no more remained to be said on this point; and this may have been the chief reason why he omitted the third chapter of 2 Peter.

16. γογγυσταί. The substantive occurs here only in the New Testament. In the LXX. γογγύζειν and διαγογγύζειν are used of the Israelites who complained against God and Moses, Exodus 15:24, Exodus 15:17:3; Numbers 14:29. So here these false brethren murmur not against the trials of life, but against their superiors, God and the δόξαι.

μεμψίμοιρος (this word again is ἅπぱいαあるふぁξくしー λεγόμενον) means “complaining of one’s lot,” “querulous.” But here again we must understand, not that the false teachers lacked the spirit of resignation, but that they were recalcitrant and grumbled against authority. Ἀμεμψαμοίρητας occurs, apparently in the sense of “uncomplaining,” in a letter found on a papyrus of the second century b.c.; see Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 211; omitted in Eng. tr.

κかっぱαあるふぁὶ τたうὸ οτόμα αあるふぁὐτたうῶνにゅー λらむだαあるふぁλらむだεいぷしろんῖ ὑπέρογκα. Cf. 2 Peter 2:18, ὑπέρογκα γがんまὰρろー ματαιότητος φθεγγόμενοι. Jude’s phrase bears resemblance to Psa_143.(144.) 8, 11, ὧνにゅー τたうὸ στόμα ἐλάλησε ματαιότητα. But it is probable that here again he is quoting from the Assumption of Moses vii. 21, “et os eorum loquetur ingentia” (the Greek text is not extant). Θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον (the phrase does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, though we find βλέπειν εいぷしろんἰς πρόσωπον, Matthew 22:16: λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον, Luke 20:21) may come from Genesis 19:21; Leviticus 19:15, or from the Assumption of Moses v. 16, “qui enim magistri sunt doctores eorum illis temporibus erunt mirantes personas cupiditatum (Fritzsche corrects nobilitatum) et acceptiones munerum et peruendent iustitias accipiendo poenas.” It has been observed that Jude does not attack the covetousness of the false teachers except here and in the word μみゅーιいおたσしぐまθしーたοおみくろんῦ, ver. 11.

17. ὑμみゅーεいぷしろんῖς δでるたὲ … Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. “But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Ὑμみゅーεいぷしろんῖς is placed in front of the sentence with great emphasis in opposition to the οおみくろんὗτたうοおみくろんιいおた of ver. 16. A comparison with 2 Peter 3:2 will show that either Peter has greatly complicated the expression of Jude, or Jude has greatly simplified that of Peter. The latter seems more probable; see ver. 10 above. The substance of this apostolic warning may be found in 1 Timothy 4:1 (where the words τたうὸ δでるたὲ Πνεῦμみゅーαあるふぁ ῥηいーたτたうῶς λέγει may introduce a prediction given orally by a Christian prophet); 2 Timothy 3:1-5; Acts 20:29. These passages show that similar admonitions were current. But the exact form of the prophecy, as it is here expressed, is found only in 2 Peter 3:3, and it is there given by an apostle as his own. Neither ῥῆμみゅーαあるふぁ nor the following λέγω need be taken to show that St. Jude was referring to mere words, for ῥῆμみゅーαあるふぁ is constantly used of scripture, and the phrase ἡ γραφὴ λέγει is familiar. But, even if the words are taken in their strict sense, the possibility of a direct quotation from 2 Peter is not excluded. St. Jude reminds his readers that the apostles had often said that mockers would come, and then proceeds to quote an apostolic document in which this saying was recorded in a particular shape. See Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, p. 70.

St. Jude here distinctly tells us that he was not an apostle himself.

18. ἐπぱいʼ ἑσχάτου χρόνου … ἀσεβειῶνにゅー. “In the last time there shall be mockers walking after their own lusts of ungodlinesses.” There is considerable authority for the insertion of ὅτたうιいおた before ἐπぱいʼ ἐσχάτου: it makes no difference in the sense, ὅτたうιいおた in such a case being merely equivalent to our inverted commas; see Blass, pp. 233, 286. K L P have ἐνにゅー ἐσχάτῳ (τたうῷ) χρόνῳ. Τたうῶνにゅー ἀσεβειῶνにゅー is best taken as objective genitive after ἐπιθυμίας, cf. 2 Peter 2:10. The R.V. (text) translates “ungodly lusts,” finding here the same Hebraism as in αあるふぁἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας, 2 Peter 2:1; but St. Jude does not use this idiom (κρίσιν βλασφημίας, ver. 9, is certainly not an instance), and it is needless to force it upon him here.

St. Jude’s text differs from that of 2 Peter in the following points:—(1) He has ἐπぱいʼ ἐσχάτου χρόνου for ἐπぱいʼ ἐσχάτων τたうῶνにゅー ἡμερῶνにゅー. Cf. ἐπぱいʼ ἐσχάτου τたうῶνにゅー χρόνων, 1 Peter 1:20. Jude’s phrase is less Hebraistic than that of 2 Peter, and better Greek than that of 1 Peter. (2) He has ἐμπαῖκται alone; here again he corrects the rugged Hebraism, ἐνにゅー ἐμπαιγμονῇ ενμπαῖκται, as he had already corrected ἐνにゅー φふぁいθしーたοおみくろんρろーᾷ φθαρήσονται, 2 Peter 2:12; Judges 1:10. (3) In κかっぱαあるふぁτたうὰ τたうὰς ἑαυτῶνにゅー ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι he corrects another vulgarism; 2 Peter has ἰδίας. (4) The genitive τたうῶνにゅー ἀσεβειῶνにゅー is redundant, and appears to be suggested by the ἀσεβής, ἀσέβεια, ἀσεβεῖνにゅー of the passage from Enoch. If we regard 2 Peter as the later, we must suppose that he first struck out the quotation from Enoch, though it suited his purpose admirably well, and then dropped the ἀσεβειῶνにゅー, because without the Enoch passage it was no longer easily intelligible. But this mode of procedure is too artificial to be probable. (5) St. Jude has left ἐμπαῖκται without any explanation. In 2 Peter the “mock” is defined quite easily and naturally by the following words, πぱいοおみくろんῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τたうῆς παρουσίας αあるふぁὐτたうοおみくろんῦ; If 2 Peter is here following Jude, it must be allowed that he has displayed great skill in his adaptation. All through this important verse it clearly seems far easier to explain Jude by 2 Peter than to reverse the process.

Among modern commentators there is a growing tendency to adopt this view; the reader may consult the arguments of Spitta, Kühl, Zahn. But the question is crucial as to the relation between the two Epistles, and it cannot be denied that a heavy weight of authority lies in the other scale. Jülicher settles the question in a very off-hand way. “It appears to speak in favour of the priority of 2 Peter, that Jude, ver. 18, quotes something as an apostolical prophecy which might be derived from 2 Peter 3:3, yet at bottom it is given there also as a generally known prophecy” (Einleitung, p. 186). But 2 Peter certainly gives the warning as his own, and, if we make him the later, we must suppose that he has here made a very serious alteration in St. Jude’s text.

19. οおみくろんὗτοί εいぷしろんἰσしぐまιいおたνにゅー οおみくろんἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες. “These are they that make separations.” Ἁποδιορίζειν is found only here in the New Testament. C and some other authorities add ἑαυτούς, but the insertion is needless. Here again Jude uses the article as in vers. 4, 12, though he omits it when not required, as in ver. 16. He means “these are they of whom you have been told that they make separations,” or “these are they who, as you see, make separations”; if we take the former sense we may find here a reference to the αあるふぁἰρέσεις of 2 Peter 2:1. But in what sense did they separate? They may, as suggested on ver. 12, have kept a distinct Agape. Even this would not imply that they had definitely gone out from the Church. At a later date there were some who celebrated the Agape “without the bishop,” yet did not regard themselves as schismatics, though Ignatius strongly reproves their conduct as unlawful (Smyrn. viii.). Or they may have kept together at a separate part of the table. There was probably some visible sign of exclusiveness. But probably also the division would largely correspond to distinctions of class. The false teachers of whom Jude is speaking attached themselves to the rich (vers. 11, 16). But the rich would be in the main the educated. Thus we may see here a “separation” caused partly by wealth, displaying itself in insolent ostentation at the Agape; partly by social position, rebelling against the authority of officials who were not always men of much worldly consideration; partly by an assumption of intellectual superiority, of “knowledge.” The same dividing influences were working at Corinth, and amongst those to whom St. James wrote, and sprang naturally out of the constitution of the Church, which was strongly democratic on one side, strongly aristocratic on another. In early days, before the Church was wealthy or educated, and before the tradition of her discipline had established itself, a rich Christian, unless he was a very devout man, must have found himself in a very trying position. It was out of this state of things that Gnosticism arose. Gnosticism was the revolt of the well-to-do half-educated bourgeois class.

Here again we may note a resemblance between Jude and the Assumption of Moses, which, after the words already quoted, “et os eorum loquetur ingentia,” proceeds thus, “et super dicent Noli tu me tangere, ne inquines me in loco in quo uersor” (vii. 21; the text, however, is largely conjectural, and is followed by two or three lines which are quite illegible; see Hilgenfeld).

ψυχικοί, πぱいνにゅーεいぷしろんῦμみゅーαあるふぁ μみゅーὴ ἔχοντες. “Sensual, not having the spirit.” Ψυχικός, opposed to πνευματικός, is a Pauline phrase resting on the peculiar Pauline psychology; see 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:44. The word is found in Jam 3:15, but could not be used by St. Peter, in whose vocabulary ψυχή means the religious soul (See note on 1 Peter 1:9, and Introduction, p. 40). Nor is πぱいνにゅーεいぷしろんῦμみゅーαあるふぁ used by St. Peter as it is here; to him πぱいνにゅーεいぷしろんῦμみゅーαあるふぁ differs from ψυχή merely as ghost from soul. He speaks of the Holy Ghost as resting on man (1 Peter 4:14), but could hardly have spoken of true Christians as “having spirit,” because in his view all men are πνεύματα. St. Jude has here introduced into 2 Peter an alien vocabulary and an alien psychology; see notes on vers. 1, 3.

St. Jude means simply what he says, that these men were psychic, not spiritual. He has been taken to mean that the people against whom he is writing called the catholics “psychic,.” as did the Gnostics and Montanists. Thus his words have been twisted into an argument for the late date of the Epistle. This, however, is quite gratuitous.

20. ἐποικοδομοῦντες … πίστει. Ἑαυτούς respresents ὑμみゅーᾶς αあるふぁὐτούς; see Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:16:8; Blass, p. 35. For the superlative, ἁγιωτάτῃ, see 2 Peter 1:4. Here, as there, it is intensive (“most holy,” not “holiest”); the true superlative being exceedingly rare in the New Testament; see Blass, p. 33. Πίστις is again fides cui creditur, as in ver. 3. We may translate “building yourselves up by means of your most holy faith,” or “upon your most holy faith”; though, in this latter sense, ἐποικοδομεῖνにゅー is followed by ἐπί with accusative in 1 Corinthians 3:12, and by ἐπί with dative in Ephesians 2:20.

προσευχόμενοι is best taken with ἐνにゅー ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι: the believer prays in the Holy Spirit, as the prophet speaks in the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:3. It is possible to translate, with Luther, “build yourselves up by (or on) faith, in the Holy Spirit, through prayer.”

21. ἑαυτοὺς ἐνにゅー ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε. God keeps them, ver. 1, yet they may be said to keep themselves; cf. 1 Timothy 5:22; Jam 1:27. The “love of God,” coupled as it is here with the mercy of Christ, almost certainly means the love of God for man; they are to keep themselves safe within the covenant by obedience. Some commentators take the words to mean “love for God,” as in 2 Thessalonians 3:5. See note on ver. 1.

τたうὸ ἔλεος. Mercy is ascribed generally to God, as in 1 Peter 1:3; in the addresses of 1 and 2 Timothy and of 2 John, to God and Christ; here to Christ alone. Here again there is a possible reference to Enoch 27. 3, 4, “in the last days … the righteous … who have found mercy will bless the Lord of glory, the Eternal King.” They will bless Him for the mercy in accordance with which He has assigned them their lot. Εいぷしろんἰς ζぜーたωおめがὴνにゅー αあるふぁἰώνιον is by many commentators coupled with πηρήσατε. In this case, “keep yourselves unto eternal life” may be thought to correspond to “kept unto Jesus Christ,” who is Life Eternal, in ver. 1. Others find the connexion in προσδεχόμενοι τたうὸ ἕλεος, but it is difficult to find a satisfactory explanation for εいぷしろんἰς either with the participle or with the substantive. With the former, it must be taken to mean “waiting until” or “waiting with your eyes fixed upon,” with the latter, “mercy that leads to”; and none of these renderings is easy.

22, 23. The text of this passage is extremely uncertain. Some of the authorities give only two clauses, some have three, and there are variations in details. (1) Those which give two clauses are—(a) Clement of Alexandria, who twice quotes the verses, giving a different text each time, Strom. vi. 8. 65, κかっぱαあるふぁὶ οおみくろんῦς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινομένους δでるたὲ ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん Adumb. in Ep. Judae, “Quosdam autem saluate de igne rapientes, quibusdam uero miseremini in timore” (κかっぱαあるふぁὶ οおみくろんὕς μみゅーὲνにゅー σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἀρπάζοντες, οおみくろんὕς δでるたὲ̀ ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん ἐνにゅー φύβῳ). (b) C, οおみくろんὕς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐλέγχετε διακρίομένους, οおみくろんὕς δでるたὲ ενλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん ἐνにゅー φύβῳ). (b) C, οおみくろんὕς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐλέγχετε διακρίομέους, οおみくろんὕς δでるたὲ σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἀρπάζοντες ἐνにゅー φόβῳ. (c) K L O, οおみくろんὕς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん διακρινόμενοι, οおみくろんὕς δでるたὲ ἐνにゅー φόβῳ σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἀρπάζοντες: Peshito, “et hos quidem miseremini resipiscentes (διακρινομένους), hos autem seruate de igne rapientes in timore.” (d) Jerome, Eze_18, “et alios quidem de igne rapite, aliorum uero qui iudicantur miseremini” (οおみくろんὓς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἀρπάζετε, οおみくろんὕς δでるたὲ διακρινομένους ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん). (e) The Bodleian Syriac, “et quosdam de illis quidem ex igne rapite, cum autem resipuerint miseremini super eis in timore” (οおみくろんὕς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινομένους δでるたὲ ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん ἐνにゅー φόβῳ). Those which make three clauses are—(a) A, οおみくろんὓς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, οおみくろんὓς δでるたὲ σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οおみくろんὓς δでるたὲ ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん ἐνにゅー φόβῳ: so the Vulgate, Cassiodorus, and Theophylact. (b) א, οおみくろんὓς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん διακρινομένους, οおみくろんὓς δでるたὲ σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οおみくろんὓς δでるたὲ ἐλεότε ἐνにゅー φόβῳ. Between the two classes stands B, οおみくろんὓς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん διακρινομένους σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἁρπάζοντες οおみくろんὓς δでるたὲ ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん ἐνにゅー φόβῳ. This text of B cannot be correct. If we translate “those, whom you pity when they dispute, save and snatch from the fire, but some pity in fear,” we must give οおみくろんὓς μέν one sense and οおみくろんὓς δέ another, which must be wrong. It is clear that the scribe of B has either omitted οおみくろんὓς δέ before σώζετε, in which case he agrees with א, or wrongly inserted ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん διακρινομένους. The confusion is clearly very ancient.

Most of the textual critics and commentators, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Keil, Alford, Spitta, adopt the text of A. Translate, “Some confute when they dispute, some save snatching them from fire, on some have mercy in fear.”

In this case we have διακρινομένους used in that sense which is borne by the verb in ver. 9. This is the proper sense of the verb, and it is hardly likely that Jude used it in any other. But is it possible that there were originally three clauses? in other words, can Jude be recommending three distinct courses of action towards three distinct classes of people? It is extremely difficult to distinguish them. Who are the “some who dispute,” who are neither to be saved nor pitied? Surely but two classes of opponents are in view. All would dispute, some would recant their error, some would not. The authority for three clauses is limited to A א, the Vulgate, Armenian, and Aethiopic.

Some follow the text of א, reading ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん (ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん) for ἐλέγχετε. Thus the R. V. renders, “On some have mercy who are in doubt; and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear.” This reading is supported by one MS. only, and compels us to give διακρίνεσθαι a meaning which it bears in Matthew, Mark, Acts, Romans, James, but not in Jude. Again, the repetition of ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん is not in Jude’s manner, and is objectionable in point of sense. Lastly, the difficulty about the three clauses still remains unbroken.

The Textus Receptus and A.V. follow K L P, translating, with Luther, “Of some have compassion making a difference; and others save with fear.” But διακρινόμενοι cannot possibly have this meaning. We must certainly correct the nominative, and read διακρινομένους.

Weiss adopts the text of B, upon which Westcott and Hort remark with justice that it “involves the incongruity that the first οおみくろんὕς must be taken as a relative, and the first ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん as indicative. Some primitive error evidently affects the passage. Perhaps the first ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん, which is not represented in Syr-Bod Clem Hier is intrusive, and was inserted mechanically from the second clause.”

The knot of the whole difficulty is to be found in B, the text of which is either conflate or erroneous. The most probable solution is that the scribe of B, or of B’s archetype, meant to give a two-clause text, that by accident he wrote down the second clause first and then corrected himself, but did not delete ἐλらむだεいぷしろんᾶτたうεいぷしろん διακρινομένους, and fell into another slip by omitting the participle in the second clause. Out of the confused text thus produced arose the readings of A א.

We may thus believe that there were originally but two clauses, but the order of these two is doubtful. We are left to choose between οおみくろんὓς μみゅーὲνにゅー ἐλέγχετε (ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん) διακρινομένους, οおみくろんὓς δでるたὲ σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἀρπάζοντες ἐνにゅー φόβῳ, with K L P (corrected) C and the Peshito, and οおみくろんὓς μみゅーὲνにゅー σώζετε ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οおみくろんὕς δでるたὲ διακρινομένους ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん ἐνにゅー φόβῳ, which would fairly represent Clement, the Bodleian Syriae, and Jerome. If the ἐλέγχετε of C is the right reading, the former seems preferable, for “confutation” would naturally come first; otherwise, the latter, for “pity” would naturally come last. As ἐλεεῖτたうεいぷしろん is upon the whole the better attested, we may take our stand upon the latter.

Translate then finally, “Some save, plucking them from fire; some, who dispute, pity in fear.” Ἐκかっぱ πぱいυうぷしろんρろーὸς ἁρπάζοντες is probably suggested by Amos 4:11, κατέστρεψα ὑμみゅーᾶς κかっぱαあるふぁθしーたὼς κατέστρεψεν ὁ Θしーたεいぷしろんὸς Σόδομα κかっぱαあるふぁὶ Γόμορρα, κかっぱαあるふぁὶ ἐγένεσθε ὡς δでるたαあるふぁλらむだὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκかっぱ πυρός : or by Zechariah 3:2, κかっぱαあるふぁὶ εいぷしろんἷπぱいεいぷしろん Κύριος πぱいρろーὸς τたうὸνにゅー διάβολον Ἐπιτιμήσαι Κύριος ἐνにゅー σしぐまοおみくろんὶ διάβολε, κかっぱαあるふぁὶ ἐπιτιμήσαι Κύριος ἐνにゅー σしぐまοおみくろんὶ ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τたうὴνにゅー Ἱερουσαλήμ οおみくろんὐκかっぱ ἰδでるたοおみくろんὺ τたうοおみくろんῦτたうοおみくろん ὡς δでるたαあるふぁλらむだὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκかっぱ πυρός; The former passage might well be recalled to St. Jude’s mind by ver. 7, the latter by ver. 9. Ἑνにゅー φόβῳ, “in fear of contamination.” “Pity them, yet fear, lest the same doom overtake yourselves.” The faith once for all delivered to the saints, ver. 3, most holy, ver. 20, is the one way of salvation; those who reject it are rooted out, ver. 12, and doomed to the fire. Cf. Mark 16:16, ὁ δでるたὲ ἀπιστήσας (τたうῷ κηούγματι) κατακριθήσεται. We might possibly find here an argument in favour of the concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, which were rejected by ancient critics merely because the words ἀναστὰ δでるたὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτου were thought to contradict those of St. Matthew, ὀψぷさいὲ δでるたὲ σαββάτων, τたうῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εいぷしろんἰς μίαν σαββάτων. See Eusebius, Quaest. ad Marinum, and Victor, quoted by Tischendorf, eighth edition, p. 405.

μみゅーιいおたσしぐまοおみくろんῦντες … χιτῶνにゅーαあるふぁ. “Hating even the tunic spotted by the flesh.” St. Jude may be thinking of the garment that is infected with leprosy, Leviticus 13:47, though the word there used is ἱμάτιον. The χιτών was worn next to the skin, and therefore peculiarly liable to contamination. All contact with these moral lepers was to be avoided. Dr. Chase, however, finds here an allusion to the “filthy garments,” ἱμάτια ῥνπαρά, of Joshua the high priest in Zechariah 3:3; and this explanation would be possible, if we could be sure that the figure of the brand plucked from the burning is borrowed from this chapter. It may be questioned whether St. Jude contemplates only sorrowful avoidance of the company of these men, or actual excommunication (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20), but his language is very strong.

24. τたうῷ δでるたὲ δυναμένῳ … ἀγαλλιάσει. “Now to him that is able to guard you without stumbling, and to make you stand before the presence of His glory without blemish in exceeding joy.” The dative depends upon the attribution implied in δόξα, κかっぱ.τたう.λらむだ., in ver. 25; but as the attribution refers at once to past, present, and future, it is not possible to supply any definite verb. The doxology in Romans 16:25 begins with the same words, τたうῷ δでるたὲ δυναμένῳ: cf. also Ephesians 3:20. Ἀπταίστους, “surefooted,” is used of a horse which does not stumble, Xen. Eq. i. 6, and of a good man who does not make moral stumbles, Epictetus, Frag. 62; M. Antoninus, v. 9. The word is probably suggested here by οおみくろんὐ μみゅーὴ πταίσητέ πぱいοおみくろんτたうεいぷしろん, 2 Peter 1:10. Σしぐまτたうῆσしぐまαあるふぁιいおた, “to make you stand,” is probably more than “to present,” though we may compare παραστῆσαι ὑμみゅーᾶς ἁγίους κかっぱαあるふぁὶ ἀμώμους κかっぱαあるふぁὶ ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον αあるふぁὐτたうοおみくろんῦ, Colossians 1:22, or Acts 6:6, οおみくろんὓς ἔστησαν ἐνώπιον τたうῶνにゅー ἀποστόλων. But we seem to have here the notion of standing in the judgment, cf. Ephesians 6:13. For δόξης and ἀγαλλιάσει, see 1 Peter 4:13.

25. K L P and the Textus Receptus insert σしぐまοおみくろんφふぁいῷ before Θしーたεいぷしろんῷ, probably from Romans 16:27; the same MSS. make the same addition in 1 Timothy 1:17. K P and Oecumenius omit δでるたιいおたὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τたうοおみくろんῦ Κυρίον ἡμみゅーῶνにゅー: the clause, though so familiar in the late doxologies, is found only here, Romans 16:27, and (in substance though not exactly in form) 1 Peter 4:11, and may possibly have been inserted with σしぐまοおみくろんφふぁいῷ from Romans. On the other hand, Jude may be quoting Romans, or both St. Paul and St. Jude may be using a current form. K P again omit πぱいρろーὸ παντὸς τたうοおみくろんῦ αあるふぁἰῶνος. These words remind us of the later “ut erat in principio,” and are not found in any other apostolic doxology. א, three cursives, and the Coptic omit πάντας. L, four cursives, and some Latin MSS. have αあるふぁἰῶνας τたうῶνにゅー αあるふぁἰώνων. Two cursives and Cassiodorus omit ἀμήν. The text has clearly been affected by liturgical influence.

μόνῳ Θしーたεいぷしろんῷ σωτῆρろーιいおた ἡμみゅーῶνにゅー. Σωτήρ is used of God eight times in the New Testament, Luke 1:47; 1 Timothy 1:1, 1 Timothy 1:2:3, 1 Timothy 1:4:10; Titus 1:3, Titus 1:2:10, Titus 1:4, and here. Of these instances six are in the Pastoral Epistles. The word is used of Christ in fifteen places, of which five are in 2 Peter, five in Luke, John and Acts, one in Philippians, four in the Pastoral Epistles. Both uses are found in the ancient Hebrew documents used by St. Luke (1:47, 2:11). For μόνος Θεός see John 5:44, δόξαν πぱいαあるふぁρろーὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, κかっぱαあるふぁὶ τたうὴνにゅー δόξαν τたうὴνにゅー πぱいαあるふぁρろーὰ τたうοおみくろんῦ μόνου Θしーたεいぷしろんοおみくろんῦ οおみくろんὐ ζητεῖτたうεいぷしろん, where, in spite of the antithesis to πぱいαあるふぁρろーὰ ἀλλήλων, the words appear to mean “the only God”; Romans 16:27, μόνῳ σοφῷ Θしーたεいぷしろんῷ, “to the only wise God”; here the first attribute qualifies the second, “to God who alone is wise”; 1 Timothy 1:17, μόνῳ Θしーたεいぷしろんῷ, “the only God,” “who alone is God.” In the present passage it is open to question whether Jude means “to the only God,” or “to God alone,” but the commentators seem to be unanimous in preferring the former rendering. “The only God” is, as Spitta points out, an expression directed against the polytheism of the Gentiles. A close parallel in sense is to be found 1 Timothy 6:15, 1 Timothy 6:16. We must take such passages in connexion with others such as John 1:1; Romans 9:5; 2 Peter 1:1; Judges 1:4, Judges 1:21, or the doxologies addressed to Christ, or the uses of Κύριος or of Σωτήρ.

Kühl, Schott, von Soden, Spitta connect σしぐまωおめがτたうῆρろーιいおた with δでるたιいおたὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “God who is our Saviour through Jesus Christ,” but this construction is unexampled and barely possible; we should have expected τたうῷ σώσαντι ἡμみゅーᾶς. The use of διά in the doxologies is strongly in favour of translating, “Glory to God through Jesus Christ.”

δόξα is ascribed to God or Christ in all the doxologies except 1 Timothy 6:16: μεγαλωσύνη (a late word which occurs also in Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 8:1, and several times in Enoch, 5:4, 9, 12:3, 14:16; see Dr. Chase’s article on Jude in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible) only here; for κράτος see 1 Timothy 6:16; 1 Peter 4:11, 1 Peter 4:5:11; Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:13. Compare the doxologies of Clement of Rome and of the Martyrium Polycarpi given in the Introduction. Ἐξουσία, which generally signifies subordinate and delegated authority, is used of the power of God, Luke 12:5; Acts 1:7. Πぱいρろーὸ παντὸς τたうοおみくろんῦ αあるふぁἰῶνος. “Before all eternity” glory was to God through Jesus Christ, and “now” is, and “to all the eternities” will be. Words could hardly express more clearly Jude’s belief in the pre-existence and eternity of Christ.

ἀμήν. See note on 1 Peter 4:11.