Jude... to them that are sanctified. Jude 1, 2 The apostolic benediction W. Muir, D. D. I. THE APOSTOLIC BENEDICTION. St. Jude has given the blessing in a fuller form than any of his brethren, superadding the benefits of Christian "love" to the other subjects of the holy wish. Observe that in this benediction the apostles follow the same order as in the text — I mean that "mercy" or "grace" is always first. And we may well perceive the absolute necessity of this. "Mercy" must form to us the beginning of every blessing. "Mercy" therefore is the first object of our concern; mercy to forgive; to rescue from perishing; to raise to favour; and to render us at last, by its purifying influence, worthy of the friendship of that gracious Being who freely bestows it. It is here we find the only source of "peace," which begins in our being reconciled to God; and the wisdom of its commencing there appears from the fact that the mind, with its many fears and hopes, has no ground whereon to rest but in union with God. Peace under the remembrance of sin, for sin is pardoned; under the visitations of adversity, for the paternal favour turns them all to present improvement and endless good; under the solemn views of the future world, for the judgment is to be an acquittal and eternity of blessedness to the children of God. The man who has this Divine tranquillity reigning in his soul will be eager to preserve the unity of kind affection with his brethren. He is in the best state for cultivating the fruits of Christian "love." He cannot hold fellowship with "the things above" without drawing down "the wisdom" that is as "peaceable and gentle" as it is "pure." II. THE LIMITATIONS within which the benediction is here pronounced. The persons on whom exclusively it is pronounced are described by decided traits of character. Every one that hears the gospel is "called." But it is not upon every one that the "call" produces its effect. As giving an abridged view of what is required in the way of evidence on this subject, the next qualification mentioned may safely be taken. For to be "preserved in Christ Jesus" denotes perseverance in every excellence. It describes at once constancy of religious profession and devotedness of religious obedience, trust in the author of our salvation, and endeavour to resemble Him. Now, consider for what use these views of character are here detailed. They are of use for determining on whom the apostolical benediction was pronounced. Freely as the blessings of the gospel are offered, never is the offer of them to conceal the great distinctions of moral truth and duty. Benedictions are to descend on ground fitted to receive them; otherwise there will spring up no real good. Let no man, therefore, soothe himself with the promises of "mercy" who is conscious that, instead of being "sanctified" under the influence of the gospel, he is living in the wilful practice of sin. ( W. Muir, D. D. )

Benson Commentary Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Jdg 1:1-2 . Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ — The highest glory which any, either man or angel, can aspire to. The word servant, under the old covenant, was adapted to the spirit of fear and bondage, which cleaved to that dispensation. But when the time appointed of the Father was come for the sending of his Son, to redeem them that were under the law, the word servant (used by the apostles concerning themselves and all the children of God) signified one that, having the Spirit of adoption, was made free by the Son of God. His being a servant is the fruit and perfection of his being a Son. And whenever the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in the New Jerusalem, then it will be indeed that his servants shall serve him, Revelation 22:3 . And brother of James — So well known by his distinguished services in the cause of Christ and of his gospel. St. James was the more eminent, namely, James the Less, usually styled the brother of the Lord; and Jude, being his brother, might also have been called the brother of Christ, rather than the brother of James. But he avoided that designation in the inscription of a letter, which he wrote in the character of an apostle, to show, that whatever respect as a man he might deserve on account of his relation to Christ, he derived no authority from it as an apostle, nor indeed claimed any. To them that are sanctified by God the Father — Devoted to his service, set apart for him and made holy, through the influence of his grace; and preserved in Jesus Christ — In the faith and profession of Christ, and union with him, and by his power. In other words, brought into the fellowship of his religion, and guarded by his grace in the midst of a thousand snares, which might have tempted them to have made shipwreck of their faith. And called — By the preaching of the word, by the dispensations of divine providence, and by the drawings of divine grace; called to receive the whole gospel blessing in time and in eternity. These things are premised, lest any of them should be discouraged by the terrible things which are afterward mentioned. Mercy and peace, &c. — A holy and truly apostolical blessing, says Estius; observing, that from this, and the benedictions in the two epistles of Peter, we learn that the benedictions in Paul’s epistles are to be completed by adding the word multiplied. Jude 1:2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jdg 1:3 . When I gave all diligence — Or made all haste, as ????? ??????? ?????????? literally signifies, Jude being informed of the assiduity, and perhaps the success, with which the false teachers were spreading their pernicious errors, found it necessary to write this letter to the faithful without delay. To write to you of the common salvation — The salvation from the guilt and power of sin, into the favour and image of God here, and from all the consequences of sin into eternal felicity and glory hereafter; a salvation called common, because it belongs equally to all who believe; to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews; to men of all nations and conditions; designed for all, and enjoyed in part by all believers. For the same reason Paul terms the faith of the gospel, the common faith, (Titus i, 4,) because an opportunity of believing is afforded to all. Here the design of the epistle is expressed, the end of which exactly answers the beginning. It was needful for me to exhort you that ye should earnestly contend — Yet humbly, meekly, and lovingly, otherwise your contending will only hurt your cause, if not destroy your souls; for the faith — All the fundamental truths of the gospel. “In the circumstances in which the faithful were when Jude wrote this letter, an exhortation to hold fast and maintain the true doctrine of the gospel against the false teachers, was more necessary and profitable for the disciples, than explications of the particular doctrines of the gospel. By strenuously contending for the faith, the apostle did not mean contending for it with fire and sword, but their endeavouring, in the spirit of meekness and love, to establish the true doctrines of the gospel, by arguments drawn, not only from the Jewish Scriptures, but especially from the writings of the evangelists and apostles, which were all, or most of them, published when Jude wrote this letter. In the same manner they were strongly to oppose and confute the errors of the false teachers. The word ????????????? properly signifies, to strive as in the Olympic games, that is, with their whole force.” Once delivered to the saints — By ???? , once, Macknight understands formerly, the word being used in that sense, Jdg 1:5 . But Estius and Beza adopt the common translation, supposing the meaning of the clause to be, that the faith spoken of was delivered to the saints once for all, and is never to be changed; nothing is to be added to it, and nothing taken from it. By the saints Jude first means the holy apostles and prophets of Christ, (in which sense the word saints is used, Colossians 3:26, compared with Ephesians 3:5 ,) to whom the Lord Jesus delivered the doctrine of the gospel in all its parts, including the truths which men were to believe, and the precepts they were to perform, together with the promises of present and eternal salvation made to the believing and obedient, and the threatenings denounced against the unbelieving and disobedient. This doctrine the apostles and evangelists delivered to their hearers in their various discourses, and consigned it to writing for the instruction of future ages. “Hence it is evident that the faith for which Christians are to contend strenuously, is that alone which is contained in the writings of the evangelists, apostles, and Jewish prophets. Now as they have expressed the things which were revealed to them in words dictated by the Spirit, ( 1 Corinthians 2:13 ,) we are to contend, not only for the things contained in their writings, but also for that form of words in which they have expressed these things, lest by contending for forms invented and established by human authority, as better fitted to express the truth than the words of inspiration, we fall into error. See 2 Timothy 1:13 . Jude’s exhortation ought in a particular manner to be attended to by the ministers of the gospel, whose duty more especially it is to preserve the people from error, both in opinion and practice.” — Macknight. Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jdg 1:4 . For there are certain men (see the margin) crept in unawares — Insinuating themselves into people’s affections by their plausible pretences, and leavening them by degrees with their errors. The ungodly teachers here described seem to have been the Nicolaitans, mentioned Revelation 2:6 , whose doctrine Christ himself declared to be hateful to him. Perhaps the Gnostics and Carpocratians, the successors of the Nicolaitans, were also meant. The Nicolaitans are said to have maintained that marriage was a human invention, not binding on Christians; on which account they had women in common, and practised unnatural lusts, as is plain from Jude’s account of them. And they hardened themselves against the fear of punishment in a future state for these crimes, by extolling the goodness and mercy of God, which they thus perverted to lasciviousness. Who were of old ordained — Or rather, as the original expression, ?????????????? ??? ????? ?? ????? , literally signifies, written, or described, before to this condemnation — Even as early as Enoch, by whom it was foretold, that by their wilful sins they would incur this condemnation. “Jude means, that these wicked teachers had their punishment before written, that is, foretold, in what is written concerning the wicked Sodomites and rebellious Israelites, whose crimes were the same with theirs; and whose punishment was not only a proof of God’s resolution to punish sinners, but an example of the punishment which he would inflict on them. Others think that in the word ?????????????? , written before, there is an allusion to the ancient custom of writing laws on tables, which were hung up in public places, that the people might know the punishment annexed to the breaking of the laws. If this is the allusion, the apostle’s meaning will be, that the wicked teachers, of whom he is speaking, were, by the divine law, condemned to severe punishment from the beginning. Turning the grace of our God — Revealed in the gospel; into lasciviousness — Into an occasion of more abandoned wickedness, even to countenance their lewd and filthy practices. It seems these ungodly men interpreted the doctrine of justification by faith, in such a manner as to free believers from all obligation to obey the law of God, and taught that they might commit the worst actions without being liable to punishment, if they possessed faith; by which they meant the mere speculative belief and outward profession of the gospel. Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ — See on 2 Peter 2:1 . The original words, ??? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????????? , “may be translated various ways, all equally literal: 1st, And denying the only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. According to this translation, one person only is spoken of here, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is called the only Lord God. 2d, Denying both the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. According to this translation, two persons are distinctly spoken of, namely, the one Lord God, or God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ his Song of Solomon 3 d, And denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. This, which is the translation in our English Bible, and which, in sense, is not different from the second rendering, I have adopted,” says Macknight, “not only because, according to it, two persons are spoken of as denied, namely, the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, but because it represents Jude’s sentiment as precisely the same with John’s 1st epist. 1 John 2:22 , He is the antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son. By declaring that those ungodly teachers denied both the Father and the Son, the apostle showed to what a pitch of impiety they had proceeded. Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. Jdg 1:5 . I will therefore put you in remembrance, &c. — I will remind you of some examples of God’s judgments against such persons. Œcumenius observes, that “by proposing the following examples of the destruction of sinners from the Old Testament history, the apostle designed to show, that the God of the Old Testament is the same with the God of the New, in opposition to the Manicheans, who denied this; also to prove that the goodness of God will not hinder him from punishing the wicked under the new dispensation, any more than it hindered him from punishing them under the old.” In this passage Jude has mentioned two of the instances of the divine vengeance against atrocious sinners, which Peter took notice of, 2 Peter 2:4-5 , (where see the notes,) and in place of the third instance, the destruction of the old world, he hath introduced the destruction of the rebellious Israelites in the wilderness. Though ye once knew this — Were informed of it, and received it as a truth; that the Lord, having saved the people out of Egypt — By a train of wonderful miracles; afterward destroyed them that believed not — That is, destroyed the far greater part of that very people, whom he had once saved in a very extraordinary manner. Let no one, therefore, presume upon past mercies, as if he were now out of danger. Jude does not mention the various sins committed by the Israelites in the wilderness, such as their worshipping the golden calf, refusing to go into Canaan, when commanded of God, their fornication with the Midianitish women, their frequent murmurings, &c., but he sums up the whole in their unbelief, because it was the source of all their sins. Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jdg 1:6 . And the angels which kept not their first estate — Or, as the clause may be rendered, their first dignity, or principality, (see on 2 Peter 2:4 ,) namely, the dignity or principality assigned them; but left their own habitation — Properly their own by the free gift of God. The apostle’s manner of speaking insinuates that they attempted to raise themselves to a higher station than that which God had allotted to them; consequently, that the sin for which they were and are to be punished, was pride and rebellion. He hath reserved — Delivered to be kept; in everlasting chains under darkness — O how unlike their own habitation! Everlasting chains is a metaphorical expression, which denotes a perpetual confinement, from which it is no more in their power to escape, than a man, who is strongly bound with iron chains, can break them. Unto the judgment of the great day — Elsewhere called the day of the Lord, and emphatically that day. In our Lord’s description of the general judgment, he tells us that the wicked are to depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels; which implies that these wicked spirits are to be punished with the wicked of mankind. Observe, reader, when these fallen angels came out of the hands of God, they were holy, (else God made that which was evil, ) and being holy they were beloved of God, (else he hated the image of his own spotless purity.) But now he loves them no more, they are doomed to endless destruction; (for if he loved them still, he would love what is sinful;) and both his former love, and his present righteous and eternal displeasure, toward the same work of his own hands, are because be changeth not; because he invariably loveth righteousness, and hateth iniquity. Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jdg 1:7-8 . Even as Sodom and Gomorrha — See on 2 Peter 2:6-9 ; and the cities about them — These were Admah and Zeboim. The four are mentioned Deuteronomy 29:23 ; Zoar, the fifth city in the plain of Sodom, was spared, at the request of Lot, for a place of refuge to him and his family. In like manner — ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? , in a manner like to these; that is, either like to these wicked teachers, or like to the inhabitants of these wicked cities, Sodom and Gomorrah; giving themselves over to fornication — The word is applicable to any sort of uncleanness; and going after strange flesh — Giving themselves up to unnatural lusts; are set forth for an example — To other presumptuous sinners; suffering the vengeance of eternal fire — Having their lovely and fruitful country turned into a kind of hell upon earth. The meaning is, The vengeance which they suffered is an example, or type, of eternal fire. Likewise — ?????? ??? ??? , in like manner, indeed; these filthy dreamers — So our translators render the word ?????????????? , an epithet which the persons described undoubtedly deserved. The word, however, only signifies dreamers; or rather, persons cast into a deep sleep, namely, into a state of ignorance and insensibility, of negligence and sloth, with respect to spiritual and eternal things; sleeping and dreaming all their lives. Defile the flesh — Their own bodies, which ought to be sacred, together with their spirits, to the service of God. Despise dominion — Those that are invested with it by Christ, and made by him the overseers of his flock; or, he may mean that they despised their civil rulers; and speak evil of dignities — Of persons in the most honourable stations. The Jews, fancying it sinful to obey the heathen magistrates, despised both them and their office. The ungodly teachers, of whom Jude speaks, carried the matter still further; they reviled all magistrates whatever, as enemies to the natural liberty of mankind. Jude 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. Jdg 1:9 . Yet Michael, &c. — It does not appear whether St. Jude learned this by any revelation, or from an ancient tradition. It suffices that these things were not only true, but acknowledged to be so by them to whom he wrote. Michael is mentioned Daniel 10:13 ; Daniel 10:21 ; Daniel 12:1 , as standing up in defence of Daniel’s people. “Because the book of Daniel is the first sacred writing in which proper names are given to particular angels, some have fancied that, during the Babylonish captivity, the Jews invented these names, or learned them from the Chaldeans. But this seems an unfounded conjecture. For the angel who appeared to Zacharias, ( Luke 1:19 ,) called himself Gabriel, which shows that that name was not of Chaldean invention.” The archangel — This word occurs but once more in the sacred writings, namely, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 . So that, whether there be one archangel only, or more, it is not possible for us to determine. Michael is called one of the chief princes, Daniel 10:13 , and the great prince, Daniel 12:1 ; (on which passages see the notes.) And, because it is said, ( Revelation 12:7 ,) that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, Estius conjectures that Michael is the chief or prince of all the angels. But this argument is not conclusive. When contending with the devil, he disputed (at what time we know not) concerning the body of Moses — Beza, Estius, Tillotson, and other good writers, think this passage is illustrated by Deuteronomy 34:6 , where it is said the Lord buried Moses in a valley, in the land of Moab, and that no one knew of his sepulchre. They suppose that, had the devil been able to discover to the Jews the place where Moses was interred, they would afterward have paid an idolatrous honour to his remains; and it would have gratified his malice exceedingly, to have made him an occasion of idolatry, after his death, who had been so great an enemy to it in his life. To prevent this, he thinks, Michael buried his body secretly. This proves, by the way, that good angels are sometimes concerned in limiting the power of the devils, which must, no doubt, be a great vexation to those malignant spirits. But Mr. Baxter suggests it as a doubt, whether it were about the dead body of Moses, or Moses exposed on the water, when an infant, that there was this contention. Baxter suggests also another interpretation, in his note on this verse. Because the apostle here seems to allude to Zechariah 3:1 , where we read of Joshua the high-priest, (representing the Jewish people,) standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him; and the Lord, namely, by his angel, saying unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee: and inasmuch as the subject of that contention, between the angel and Satan, was the restoration of the Jewish Church and state, Baxter thinks that by the body of Moses here may be meant the Jewish constitution, civil and religious, which Moses had established. An interpretation which Macknight seems to countenance; “Michael is spoken of as one of the chief angels, who took care of the Israelites as a nation. He may therefore have been the angel of the Lord, before whom Joshua, the high-priest, is said, ( Zechariah 3:1 ) to have stood, Satan being at his right hand to resist him, namely, in his design of restoring the Jewish Church and state, called by Jude, the body of Moses, just as the Christian Church is called by Paul, the body of Christ.” And this interpretation, however apparently improbable, receives some countenance from the consideration, that, among the Hebrews, the body of a thing is often used for the thing itself. Thus, Romans 7:24 , the body of sin signifies sin itself. So the body of Moses may signify Moses himself, who is sometimes put in the New Testament for his law, as 2 Corinthians 3:15 , When Moses is read, &c. Acts 15:21 , Moses hath in every city them that preach him. Durst not bring against him a railing accusation — But so revered the divine presence as to speak with moderation and gentleness, even to that great enemy of God and men. Michael’s duty, says Archbishop Tillotson, “restrained him, and probably his discretion too. As he durst not offend God in doing a thing so much beneath the dignity and perfection of his nature, so he could not but think that the devil would have been too hard for him at railing; a thing to which, as the angels have no disposition, so I believe they have no talent, no faculty at it; the cool consideration whereof should make all men, particularly those who call themselves divines, and especially in controversies about religion, ashamed and afraid of this manner of disputing.” But simply said — So great was his modesty! The Lord rebuke thee — I leave thee to the Judge of all. The argument of the apostle certainly does not lie in any regard shown by the angel to the devil, as a dignitary, and one who exercises dominion over subordinate evil spirits; for to be the leader of a band of such inexcusable rebels could entitle him to no respect; but it arises from the detestable character of the devil; as if the apostle had said, If the angel did not rail even against the devil, how much less ought we against men in authority, even supposing them in some things to behave amiss? To do it, therefore, when they behave well, must be a wickedness yet much more aggravated. — Doddridge. Jude 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Jdg 1:10-11 . But these — Without any shame; speak evil of those things which they know not — Namely, the things of God; of whose nature and excellence, truth and importance, they are entirely ignorant. See on 1 Corinthians 2:14 . But what they know naturally as brute beasts — By instinct, as animals void of reason; in those things they corrupt themselves — They make them occasions of sin: or, they are corrupted by the gross and scandalous abuse of them, to the dishonour of God, and their own infamy and destruction. Thus the apostle signifies that, notwithstanding their high pretensions to knowledge, they had no knowledge even concerning the use of their own bodies, but what they derived from natural instinct as brute animals; and that, instead of using that knowledge rightly, they thereby destroyed both their souls and bodies. Thus, in this passage, he condemned the lascivious practices of the Nicolaitans, and of all the ungodly teachers, who defended the promiscuous use of women, and confuted the argument taken from natural appetite, by which they vindicated their common whoredoms. Wo unto them — Of all the apostles, Jude alone, and that in this single passage, denounces a wo. St. Peter, to the same effect, pronounces them cursed children. Macknight, who renders the clause, wo is to them, considers it as only a declaration of the misery which was to come on them: in which sense only the phrase is used by our Lord, Matthew 24:19 ; Wo unto them that are with child, &c., for certainly this was no wish of punishment, since to be with child, and to give suck in those days, was no crime. But it was a declaration of the misery which was coming on persons in that helpless condition. For they have gone in the way of Cain — The murderer; and ran greedily — Greek, ?????????? , have been poured out, like a torrent without banks; after the error of Balaam — The covetous false prophet, being strongly actuated, like him, by a passion for riches, and therefore drawing money from their disciples by allowing them to indulge their lusts without restraint. See on 2 Peter 2:15 . And perished in the gainsaying of Core — Having opposed God’s messengers, as Korah did, like him and his company, vengeance will overtake them, as it did him. Here, as in many passages of Scripture, a thing is said to have happened which was only to happen. This manner of speaking was used to show the absolute certainty of the thing spoken of. The gainsaying, here mentioned, implies rebellion; for when princes and magistrates are contradicted, it is rebellion. By declaring that the ungodly teachers would perish in the rebellion of Korah, Jude insinuated that these men, by opposing the apostles of Christ, were guilty of a rebellion similar to that of Korah and his companions, who opposed Moses and Aaron, on pretence that they were no more commissioned by God, the one to be a prince, the other a priest, than the rest of the congregation, who, they said, were all holy, Numbers 16:3 ; Numbers 16:13 . By comparing these false and wicked teachers to Cain, Balaam, and Korah, Jude has represented them as guilty of murder, covetousness, and ambition. Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. Jude 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Jdg 1:12 . These — Ungodly teachers; are spots — Blemishes; in your feasts of charity — Or love-feasts, as ??????? is rendered by many interpreters. Commentators, however, are not agreed what sort of feasts they were. Some think they were those suppers which the first Christians ate previous to their eating the Lord’s supper, of which St. Paul is supposed to have spoken 1 Corinthians 11:21 ; but which, in consequence of the abuse of them by persons of a character like those here described, were soon laid aside. Others think Jude is speaking of the ancient love-suppers, which Tertullian hath described, ( Apol., chap. 39,) and which do not seem to have been accompanied with the eucharist. These were continued in the church to the middle of the fourth century, when they were prohibited to be kept in the churches. Dr. Benson observes, “they were called love-feasts, or suppers, because the richer Christians brought in a variety of provisions to feed the poor, the fatherless, the widows, and strangers, and ate with them to show their love to them.” When they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear — Abandoning themselves to gluttony and excess, without any fear of God, or jealousy over themselves, and so bringing a great reproach on the gospel, and the religion of Christ. Clouds without water — Promising fertilizing showers of instruction and edification, but yielding none, or making a show of what they have not; see on 2 Peter 2:17 ; carried about of winds — Of temptation hither and thither, without any command of themselves, into various sorts of wickedness. Trees without fruit — The original expression, ?????? ??????????? , is rendered by Macknight, withered autumnal trees; the latter word being derived from ?????????? , which, according to Scapula, signifies, The decline of autumn drawing toward winter. Or, according to Phavorinus, it signifies a disease in trees which withers their fruit; a sense of the word which Beza has adopted in his translation. The translation of the Vulgate, arbores autumnales infructuoscæ, gives the same sense with that of Macknight, and suggests, he thinks, a beautiful idea. For, “in the eastern countries, the finest fruits being produced in autumn, by calling the corrupt teachers autumnal trees, Jude intimated the just expectation which was entertained of their being fruitful in good doctrine: but by adding ?????? , without fruit, he marked their uselessness, and the disappointment of their disciples.” Twice dead — First in the stock, and afterward in the graft; first by nature, and afterward by apostacy. Or dead under the Mosaic dispensation, (those ungodly teachers being mostly of the Jewish nation,) and though at first apparently quickened on their reception of the gospel, yet, through the abuse of its doctrines and privileges, dead and barren a second time: plucked up by the roots — As hopeless and irrecoverable. “There is a striking climax in this description of the false teachers: they were trees stripped of their leaves, and withering; they had no fruit, being barren that season: they were twice dead, having borne no fruit formerly: lastly, they were rooted out, as utterly barren.” Jude 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. Jdg 1:13 . Raging waves of the sea — Unstable in their doctrine, and turbulent and furious in their tempers and manners, having no command of their irascible passions. Foaming out their own shame — By their wicked and outrageous behaviour, even among their disciples, showing their own filthiness to their great disgrace. The apostle seems here to have alluded to Isaiah 57:20 , The wicked are like the troubled sea when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. Wandering stars — ???????? , literally, planets, which shine for a time, but have no light in themselves. The Jews called their teachers stars, and Christian teachers are represented under the emblem of stars, Revelation 1:20 ; Revelation 2:1 . And as the planets seem to have a very irregular motion, being sometimes stationary and sometimes retrograde, they are very proper emblems of persons unsettled in their principles, and irregular in their behaviour, such as these men were. To whom is reserved the blackness of darkness, &c. Who will soon be driven to an eternal distance from the great original of light and happiness, to which they shall never return. Thus the apostle illustrates their desperate wickedness, by comparisons drawn from the air, earth, sea and heavens. Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, Jdg 1:14-15 . And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam — Thus described to distinguish him from Enoch the son of Cain, ( Genesis 4:17 ,) who was only the third from Adam; so early was the prophecy delivered, referred to Jdg 1:4 : prophesied of these — As well as of the antediluvian sinners. The first coming of Christ was revealed to Adam, his second and glorious coming to Enoch, who foretold the things which will conclude the last age of the world. St. Jude might know this either from some ancient book or tradition, or from immediate revelation. In whatever way he knew it, a precious fragment of antediluvian history is thus preserved to us by the special providence of God, who taught the Apostle Jude to distinguish between what was genuine and what was spurious in ancient story. “Though Moses has said nothing concerning Enoch’s prophesying, yet by telling us that he was a person of such piety, as to be translated to heaven in the body without dying, he hath warranted us to believe Jude’s account of him; namely, that God employed him, as he did Noah, in reforming the wicked of the age in which he lived, and that he inspired him to deliver the prophecy of which Jude speaks. Saying, Behold, (as if it were already done!) The Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints — Or holy ones, namely, angels, with legions of whom his descent for the purpose here mentioned will be attended; to execute judgment — Or to pass sentence, as ??????? ?????? may be rendered; upon all — According to their respective works. Herein Enoch looked beyond the flood: and to convince — Or convict rather, as ????????? more properly signifies, by witnesses that cannot be confronted; all that are ungodly among them — Among those judged, and upon whom sentence is passed. Of all their ungodly deeds — Their wicked

Expositor's Bible Commentary Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Chapter 31 THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE-THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Judges 1:3 THE Greek of the opening sentence of this passage, in which St. Jude explains his reason for writing this Epistle, is ambiguous. The words "of our common salvation" ( ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ) may go either with what precedes or with what follows. But there is little doubt that both the Authorized and the Revised Versions are right in taking them with what precedes. The true connection is, not, "While I was giving all diligence to write unto you, I was constrained to write unto you of our common salvation," but, "While I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith." This Epistle can scarcely be called a letter "about our common salvation." The meaning is that St. Jude had intended to write such a letter, but the crisis created by the entrance of these ungodly men into the Church constrained him to write a letter of a different kind, viz., the one which lies before us. That he had already begun to write a letter "respecting our common salvation," and that we have here to lament the loss of another Epistle besides the lost Epistles of St. Paul and St. John, { 1 Corinthians 5:9 ; 3 John 1:9 } is neither stated nor implied. St. Jude had been thinking very earnestly about writing a more general and comprehensive Epistle, when he realized that the presence of a very serious evil required immediate action, and accordingly he writes at once to point out the existing peril, and to denounce those who are the authors of it. It is the duty of all Christians to be on their guard, and to be unflinching in their defense of the truth which has been committed to them to preserve and cherish. "The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." This does not mean, which was delivered by God to the Apostles, but which was delivered by the Apostles to the Church. "The saints" here, as so often in the New Testament, { Acts 9:13 ; Acts 9:32 ; Acts 9:41 ; Acts 26:10; Romans 8:27 ; Romans 13:13 ; Romans 15:25-26 ; Romans 15:31 ; etc., etc.} means all Christians. If the whole nation of the Jews was a "holy people" ( ???? ????? ), "a peculiar treasure unto Jehovah from among all peoples," { Exodus 19:5 } by reason of their special election by Him; { Deuteronomy 7:6 ; Deuteronomy 14:2 ; Deuteronomy 14:21 } if they were "saints of the Most High," { Daniel 7:18 ; Daniel 7:22 ; Daniel 7:25 } much more might this be said of Christians, who had inherited all the spiritual privileges of the Jews, and had received others in abundance, far exceeding any that the Jews had ever possessed. Christians also, in a still higher sense, were "an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession". { 1 Peter 2:9 } The Christians of Corinth, Ephesus, and Colossae, in spite of the enormous evils which they practiced or sanctioned, or at least tolerated, are still called "saints." They are holy, not as being persons of holy life, but as being devoted to God. Of course such persons ought to be holy in conduct, but to call them "saints" does not assert that they are so. The name asserts the fact of being set apart by God for Himself, and implies what ought to be the result of such separation. "Thus the main idea of the term is consecration. But though it does not assert moral qualifications as a fact in the persons so designated, it implies them as a duty." To each individual Christian, therefore, the name is at once an honor, an exhortation, and a reproach. It tells of his high calling, it exhorts him to live up to it, and it reminds him of his grievous shortcomings. "The faith once for all delivered unto the saints" ( ?? ???? ??????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ) both the adverb, "once for all," and the aorist participle, "delivered," are worthy of special notice. "The faith" does not mean any set formula of articles of belief, nor the internal reception of Christian doctrine, but the Substance of it; it is equivalent to what St. Paul and the Evangelists call "the Gospel," viz., that body of truth which brings salvation to the soul that receives it. This Faith, or this Gospel, has been once for all delivered to Christians. No other will be given, for there is no other. Whatever may be delivered by any one in future cannot be a Gospel at all. The one true Gospel is complete and final, and admits of no successors and no supplements. { Galatians 1:6-9 } "The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." Does, this exclude all possibility of a "development of Christian doctrine"? That depends upon what one means by "development." The expression has been interpreted to mean "that the increase and expansion of the Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in the case of individual writers and Churches, are the necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or extended dominion; that from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as received and transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation." If the ambiguous expression "and perfection" be omitted, one may readily allow that development of Christian doctrine in this sense has taken place. To say that time is needed for the full comprehension of the great truths which were communicated to the Church once for all by the Apostles is one thing; to say that time is needed for the perfection of those truths may or may not be quite another. And the manner in which the subject is treated in the famous Essay from which the passage just quoted is taken shows that what is meant by the "perfecting" of the truths is a very different thing from the full comprehension of their original contents; it means making additions to the original contents in order to remedy supposed deficiencies. In this sense it may be confidently asserted, and as loyal Christians we are bound to assert, that there is no such thing as development of Christian doctrine. If there be such a thing, then we cannot stop short with those developments which can in some measure be called Christian. The author himself reminds us that "no one has power over the issues of his principles; we cannot manage our argument, and have as much of it as we please and no more". If the faith once for all delivered to the saints was defective, and needed to be supplemented by subsequent additions, why may not Christianity itself be, as some have maintained, only a phase in the development of religion, which in process of time is to be superseded by something wholly unchristian? The transition is easily made from the position of the "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" to that of Channing, that "it makes me smile to hear immortality claimed for Catholicism or Protestantism, or for any past interpretations of Christianity; as if the human soul had exhausted itself in its infant efforts; as if the men of one or a few generations could bind the energy of human thought and affection forever"; and thence to the position of Strauss, who, in his latest and most dreary work, on "The Old and the New Faith," asks the question, "Are we still Christians?" and answers it emphatically in the negative. The chief doctrines of Christianity are to him childish or repulsive beliefs, which thoughtful men have long since left behind. We may still in some sense be religious; but Christianity has done its work, and is rightly being dismissed from the stage. This is the advanced thinking of which St. John writes in his Second Epistle: "Every one that goeth onward ( ??? ? ??????? ), and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" ( 2 John 1:9 ). There is an advance which involves desertion of first principles; and such an advance is not progress, but apostasy. But does the development of doctrine, in the sense contended for by the author of the celebrated Essay, mean making actual additions to the faith once for all delivered, as distinct from arriving at a better comprehension of the contents and logical consequences of the original deposit? This question must be answered in the affirmative, for various reasons. The whole purpose of the Essay, and the actual expressions used in it, require this meaning; and that this is the obvious meaning has been assumed by Roman Catholic as well as Protestant critics, and (so far as the present writer is aware) this interpretation has never been resented as illegitimate by the author. The whole argument is admittedly "a hypothesis to account for a difficulty," "an expedient to enable us to solve what has now become a necessary and an anxious problem", viz., the enormous difference between the sum total of Roman Catholic doctrines and those which can be found in the Christian documents of the first two or three centuries. The Essay is believed by its author to furnish "a solution of such a number of the reputed corruptions of Rome as might form a fair ground for trusting her where the investigation had not been pursued". And that the faith once for all delivered is regarded as in need of supplements and additions seems to be implied in such language as the following: "In whatever sense the need and its supply are a proof of design in the visible creation, in the same do the gaps, if the word may be used, which occur in the structure of the original creed of the Church, make it probable that those developments, which grow out of the truths which lie around them, were intended to complete it". It is the business of succeeding ages of the Church to "keep what was exact, and supply what was deficient". The author of the "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" states in another of his works that when he was admitted to the Church of Rome he embraced volumes containing the writings of the Christian Fathers, crying out that now they were really his own. The action and exclamation were thoroughly inconsistent with the position maintained throughout the Essay, and since then adopted by numbers of Roman controversialists. He ought rather to have cleared his shelves of the works of the Fathers, and to have consigned them to the lumber-room with the remark, "Now I need never look at you any more." As Bishop Cornelius Mussus (Musso) said long ago, "For my part, to speak quite frankly, I would give more credence to a single Pope than to a thousand Augustines, Jeromes, and Gregorys" (In "Epist. ad Romans 14:1-23 ," p. 606, Venet., 1588, quoted in Hardwick’s edition of Archer Butler’s "Letters on Romanism," p. 394). It is the latest and most modern works on Roman theology, especially those which expound the utterances of the most recent Popes, that deserve to be studied, if the theory of the development be correct. According to that theory, the teaching of the primitive Church was certainly immature and defective, and possibly even erroneous. In order to find out what primitive writers meant, or ought to have meant, we must look to the latest developments. They are the criteria by which to test the teaching of the early Church; it is beginning at the wrong end to test the developments by Christian antiquity. In former times Romanists were at great pains to show that traces of their peculiar tenets could be found in the writers of the first few centuries; and not in a few cases the works of these primitive writers were interpolated, in order to make out a fair case. Criticism has exposed these forgeries, and it has been demonstrated that the early Christian teachers were ignorant of whole tracts of Roman doctrine and practice. Roman controversy has therefore entirely shifted its ground. It now freely admits that these things were unknown to Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Augustine; but for the simple reason that, when they wrote, these things had not yet been revealed. The Church was still ignorant that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin, was taken bodily to heaven after her death, and ought to be invoked in prayer; it was still ignorant of the doctrine of purgatory, of indulgences, and of the necessity of being in communion with the Church of Rome. It will not do to say that Christ and His Apostles planted the germs of these things, and that for centuries the germs did not expand and fructify, and therefore remained unnoticed. For, first, how can there be a germ of a historical fact, such as the supposed removal of the Virgin’s body to heaven, which is most happily named an "assumption"? Secondly, now that the fruit has appeared, we ought to be able to trace it back to the germ which for so long was ignored. And, thirdly, if the germs were really deposited by Christ and His Apostles, they would have developed in a somewhat similar manner in all parts of Christendom. Different surroundings will account for some variety of development, but not for absolute difference in kind. The germ respecting communion with the Church of Rome, if there was one, developed in the East, where all germs were in the first instance planted, into the doctrine that no such communion was necessary. Therefore, from the Roman point of view, it is necessary to maintain that the development of Christian doctrine involves, not merely the better comprehension of the contents of doctrines, and the expansion of seeds and germs of truth, but the admission of actual supplements and additions, derived from new revelations of fresh items of truth. As the Jesuit Father Harper said, in his reply to Dr. Pusey’s "Eirenicon," "Christ grew in wisdom daily. So does the Church, not in mere appearance, but of truth. Her creed, therefore, can never shrink back to the dimensions of the past, but must ever enlarge with the onward future." Hence the necessity for the doctrine of Infallibility. For Roman developments are not the only ones. The Eastern Churches have theirs; Protestant Churches have theirs; and outside these there are other developments, both non-Christian, and anti-Christian. Unless there is some authority which can say, "Our developments are Divinely inspired and necessary, while all others are superfluous or wrong," the doctrine of Development may be used with as much force against Rome as for her. Consequently we find the author of the Essay using the theory of Development as an argument for that of the Infallibility. "If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important developments this is a strong antecedent argument in favor of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon those developments…If certain large developments of it are true, they must surely be accredited as true." (pp. 117-19). This is further proof that what is contemplated in this theory is not mere logical deductions from revealed truth; for logical deductions vindicate themselves by an appeal to the reason, and need no sanction from an infallible authority. Developments are indeed said to follow by way of "logical sequence," but this term is made to receive an enlarged meaning. "It will include any progress of the mind from one judgment to another, as, for instance, by way of moral fitness, which may not admit of analysis into premise and conclusion". Thus the "deification of St. Mary" is a "logical sequence" of our Lord’s Divinity. "The votaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son came up to it. The Church of Rome is not idolatrous, unless Arianism is orthodoxy". The following criticism, therefore, does not seem to be unjust: "However the theory may be modified by the subsequent additional supposition of infallible guidance, it is quite evident that, considered in itself, its internal spirit and scope (especially as illustrated by its alleged Roman instances) are nothing short of this, that everything which certain good men in the Church, or men assumed to be such, can by reasoning or feeling collect from a revealed truth is, by the mere fact of its recognition [i.e., by the supposed infallible guide], admissible and authoritative." This is indeed a wide door to open for the reception of additions to the faith! That St. Jude lays much stress on the fact that the sum total of the Gospel, and not merely the elementary portions of it, have been once for all committed to the Church, is shown, not only by the prominence which he gives to the thought here, but by his repetition of it a few lines later, when he begins the main portion of his Epistle: "I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things once for all" ( Judges 1:5 ). Any teaching of new doctrines is not only unnecessary, it is also utterly inadmissible. And every Christian has his responsibilities in this matter. He is to "contend earnestly" ( ????????????? ). with all the energy and watchfulness of an athlete in the arena, for the preservation of this sacred deposit, lest it be lost or corrupted. And the manner in which this earnest contest is to be maintained is not left doubtful; not with the sword, as Beza rightly remarks, nor with intemperate denunciation or indiscriminate severity, but with the mighty influence of a holy life, built upon the foundation of our "most holy faith" ( Judges 1:20-23 ). It is in this way that lawful development of Christian doctrine is secured; not by additions to what was once for all delivered, but by a deeper and wider comprehension of its inexhaustible contents. "If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter 32 THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE ITS RELATION TO PETER. Judges 1:4 WE have here the occasion of the letter stated very plainly. St. Jude was meditating a letter on a more general subject, when the grave peril created by the anti-Christian behavior of the persons condemned in the text constrained him to write at once on this more urgent topic. An insidious invasion of the Christian Church has taken place by those who have no right to a place within it, and who endanger its peace and purity; and he dare not keep silence. The strong must be exhorted to withstand the evil; the weak must be rescued from it. These invaders are in one respect like those who are condemned in the Epistle to the Galatians, in another respect very unlike them. They are "false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily"; { Galatians 2:4 } but they have come in, not "to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," but to "turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness." The troublers of the Galatian Church were endeavoring to contract Christian liberty, whereas these ungodly men were straining it to the uttermost. Both ended in destroying it. The one turned the "freedom with which Christ set us free" into an intolerable yoke of Jewish bondage; the other turned it into the polluting anarchy of heathen, or worse than heathen, license. How utterly alien these latter are from Christianity, or even from Judaism, is indicated by St. Jude’s pointed introduction of the pronoun "our" in two clauses in this verse: "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jehovah is "our God," not theirs; they are "without God in the world." And Christ is "our only Master and Lord," but not theirs; they have denied and rejected Him, choosing to "walk after their own lusts" ( Judges 1:16 ), rather than to "walk even as He walked". { 1 John 2:6 } They have repudiated His easy yoke, that they may follow their own bestial desires. Who are these "ungodly men"? Clement of Alexandria ("Strom.," III 2. sub fin.) thinks that St. Jude is speaking prophetically of the abominable doctrines of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates. Some modern writers adopt this view, with the omission of the word "prophetically," and thus obtain an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. If the writer knew the teaching of Carpocrates, he cannot have been Jude the brother of James and the brother of the Lord. The date of Carpocrates is too uncertain to make this a perfectly conclusive argument, even if we admit the assumption that the writer of this Epistle is alluding to his teaching; for he is sometimes placed before Cerinthus, who was contemporary with St. John. But it may be allowed as probably correct that St. Jude was dead before Carpocrates was known as a teacher of Antinomian Gnosticism. There is, however, nothing whatever to show that it is to his teaching that St. Jude is alluding. He says nothing whatever about the teaching of these "ungodly men," who perhaps were not teachers at all; still less does he indicate that they belonged to those Gnostics who, from the Oriental doctrine of the absolutely evil character of matter and everything material, drew the practical conclusion that man’s material body may be made to undergo every kind of experience, no matter how shameless, in order that the soul may gain knowledge; that the soul is by enlightenment too pure, and the body by nature too impure, to be capable of pollution; that filth cannot be defiled, and that pure gold remains pure, however often it may be plunged in filthiness. No such doctrine is hinted at by St. Jude. Dorner, therefore, goes beyond what is written when he says that "the persons whom Jude opposes are not merely such as have practically swerved from the right way; they are also teachers of error" ("Doctrine of the Person of Christ," Intr., p. 72, Eng. Tr.: T. & T. Clark, 1861). It is more reasonable, with De Wette, Bruckner, Meyer, Kuhl, Reuss, Farrar, Salmon, and others to regard these "ungodly men" as just what St. Jude describes them, and no more; libertines who ought never to have been admitted into the Church at all; who maintained that Christians were free to live lives of gross sensuality; and who, when rebuked by the elders or other officers of the Church for their misconduct, not only refused to submit, but reviled those who were set over them.. They were "teachers of error," but by their bad example, not by systematic preaching. They "screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assumptions," because they assumed that "having been called for freedom, "they might" use their freedom for an occasion to the flesh," { Galatians 5:13 } not because they assumed that they ought to disobey the commandments of the Creator of the material universe. And for the same reason they may be called "libertines" on principle. When St. Jude says that they "denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," he means that they denied Him by their lives. It is altogether unreasonable to read into this simple phrase, which is sufficiently explained by the context, a dogmatic denial of the Incarnation. That the germs of Antinomian Gnosticism are here indicated may be true enough; but they have not yet developed into a body of doctrine. Still less have those who are tainted by these germs developed into a heretical sect. It is with the verse before us that the marked resemblance between the Epistle of St. Jude and the central portion of the Second Epistle of St. Peter begins; and it continues down to ver. 18 { Judges 1:18 }. In this short letter of twenty-five verses, only the first three and last seven verses, i.e., about a third of the whole, have no intimate relations with 2 Peter. The last word has not yet been spoken upon this perplexing subject. The present writer confesses that he remains still uncertain as to the true relation between the two, and that he has inclined sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other of the two rival hypotheses. Thus much of what he wrote on the subject more than ten years ago may be repeated now:- "The similarity, both in substance and wording, is so great that only two alternatives are possible-either one has borrowed from the other, or both have borrowed from a common source. The second alternative is rarely, if ever, advocated; it does not explain the facts very satisfactorily, and critics are agreed in rejecting it. But here agreement ends. On the further question, as to which writer is prior, there is very great diversity of opinion. One thing, therefore, is certain, that whichever writer has borrowed, he is no ordinary borrower. He knows how to assimilate foreign material so as to make it thoroughly his own. He remains original, even while he appropriates the words and thoughts of another. He controls them, not they him. Were this not so there would be little doubt about the matter. In any ordinary case of appropriation, if both the original and copy are forthcoming, critics do not doubt long as to which is the original. It is-when the copy itself is a masterpiece, as in the case of Holbein’s Madonna, that criticism is baffled. Such would seem to be the case here; and the present writer is free to confess his own uncertainty." Other persons are able to write with much more confidence. Dean Mansel says, "Some eminent modern critics have attempted, on the very precarious evidence of style, to assign the priority in time of writing to St. Jude; but there are two circumstances which appear to me to prove most conclusively that St. Jude’s Epistle was written after that of St. Peter, and with express reference to it. The first is, that the evils which St. Peter speaks of as partly future St. Jude describes as now present. The one says, ‘There shall be false teachers among you"; { 2 Peter 2:1 ; the future tense being continued through, the two following verses} the other says, ‘There are certain men crept in unawares.’ "The other circumstance is still more to the point. St. Peter in his Second Epistle has the remarkable words, ‘Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers ( ????????? ) shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts’. { 2 Peter 3:3 } St. Jude has the same passage, repeated almost word for word, but expressly introduced as a citation of Apostolic language: ‘But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you, In the last time there shall be mockers ( ????????? ), walking after their own ungodly lusts’ ( Judges 1:17-18 ). The use of the plural number ( ??? ????????? ) may be explained by supposing that the writer may also have intended to allude to passages similar in import, though differently expressed, in the writings of St. Paul (such as 1 Timothy 4:1-2 ; 2 Timothy 3:1 ), but the verbal coincidence can hardly be satisfactorily explained, unless we suppose that St. Jude had principally in his thoughts, and was actually citing, the language of St. Peter" ("The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries," Murray, 1875, pp. 69, 70). Hengstenberg puts forward the same arguments, and considers the second to be decisive as to the priority of 2 Peter. Not less confident is Archdeacon Farrar that exactly the opposite hypothesis is the right one. "After careful consideration and comparison of the two documents it seems to my own mind impossible to doubt [the italics are Dr. Farrar’s] that Jude was the earlier of the two writers"… "I must confess my inability to see how any one who approaches the inquiry with no ready-made theories can fail to come to the conclusion that the priority in this instance belongs to St. Jude. It would have been impossible for such a burning and withering blast of defiance and invective as his brief letter to have been composed on principles of modification and addition. All the marks which indicate the reflective treatment of an existing document are to be seen in the Second Epistle of St. Peter. In every instance of variation we see the reasons which influenced the later writer…The notion that St. Jude endeavored to ‘improve upon’ St. Peter is, I say, a literary impossibility; and if in some instances the phrases of St. Jude seem more antithetical and striking, and his description clearer, I have sufficiently accounted for the inferiority-if it be inferiority-of St. Peter by the supposition that he was a man of more restrained temperament; that he wrote, under the influence of reminiscences and impressions; and that he was warning against forms of evil with which he had not come into so personal a contact" ("The Early Days of Christianity," Cassell & Co, 1882, 1. pp. 196-203). The main arguments in favor of the view that the Second Epistle of St. Peter was used by St. Jude, besides those stated by Dean Mansel, are the following:- (1) If 2 Peter is genuine, it is more probable that St. Jude should borrow from St. Peter than that the chief of the Apostles should borrow from one who was not an Apostle at all. If 2 Peter is not genuine, it is improbable that the forger would borrow from a writing which from the first was regarded with suspicion, because it quoted apocryphal literature. (2) St. Jude tells us ( Judges 1:3 ) that he wrote under pressure to meet a grave emergency, and therefore he would be more likely to make large use of suitable material ready to his hand, than one who was under no such necessity. The main arguments on the other side are these:- (1) It is more probable that the chief portion of a short letter should be used again with a great deal of additional matter, than that one section only of a much longer letter should be used again with very little additional matter. (2) It is more probable that the writer of 2 Peter should omit what seemed to be difficult or likely to give offence, than that St. Jude should insert such things; e. g., "clouds without water" { Judges 1:12 } is a contradiction in terms, and therefore is naturally corrected to "wells without water"; { 2 Peter 2:17 } the particular way in which the angels fell, { Judges 1:6 } the allusion to certain Levitical pollutions ( Judges 1:23 ), and the citations from apocryphal books ( Judges 1:9 ; Judges 1:14-15 ) are either entirely omitted by the writer of 2 Peter, or put in a way much less likely to seem offensive. { 2 Peter 2:4 ; 2 Peter 2:11 } And Judges 1:9 has been so toned down by the writer of 2 Peter that without St. Jude’s statement respecting Michael and the devil we should scarcely understand 2 Peter 2:11 . Besides these points there are two arguments which are used on both sides of the question:- (1) There are certain elements in St. Jude’s Epistle of which the writer of 2 Peter would probably have made use, had he seen them, e. g., the ironical play upon the word "kept" in "the angels which kept not ( ???????? ) their own principality He hath kept ( ????????? ) in everlasting bonds"; the telling antithesis in ver. 10 ( Judges 1:10 ), that what these sinners do not know, and can not know, they abuse by gross irreverence; and what they know, and cannot help knowing, they abuse by gross licentiousness; and the metaphor of "wandering stars" ( Judges 1:13 ), which would fit the false teachers, who lead others astray, in 2 Peter, much better than the ungodly men, who are not leaders at all, in Jude. As the writer of 2 Peter makes no use of these points, the inference is that he had never seen them. But, on the other hand, there are certain elements in 2 Peter of which St. Jude would probably have made use, had he seen them; e.g., the destruction of "the world of the ungodly" by the Flood; the "eyes full of an adulteress"; and the explanation of the "great swelling words" as "promising them liberty," which would exactly have suited St. Jude’s purpose in condemning those who turned liberty into license. As St. Jude makes no use of these points, the-inference is that he had not seen them. (2) St. Jude, as will be shown presently, groups nearly everything in threes. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that wherever he can make a threefold arrangement he does so. Is this