Text -- Jude 1:9 (NET)

1:9 But even when Michael the archangel was arguing with the devil and debating with him concerning Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a slanderous judgment, but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Jud 1:9

Michael the archangel ( ho Michael ho archaggelos ).

Michael is mentioned also in Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; Rev 12:7. Archaggelos in N.T. occurs only here and 1Th 4:16, but in Dan 10:13, Dan 10:20; Dan 12:1.

Robertson: Jud 1:9

Contending with the devil ( tōi diabolōi diakrinomenos ).

Present middle participle of diakrinō , to separate, to strive with as in Act 11:2. Dative case diabolōi .

Robertson: Jud 1:9

When he disputed ( hote dielegeto ).

Imperfect middle of dialegomai as in Mar 9:34.

Robertson: Jud 1:9

Concerning the body of Moses ( peri tou Mōuseōs sōmatos ).

Some refer this to Zec 3:1, others to a rabbinical comment on Deu 34:6. There is a similar reference to traditions in Act 7:22; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2; 2Ti 3:8. But this explanation hardly meets the facts.

Robertson: Jud 1:9

Durst not bring ( ouk etolmēsen epenegkein ).

"Did not dare (first aorist active indicative of tolmaō ), to bring against him"(second aorist active infinitive of epipherō ).

Robertson: Jud 1:9

A railing accusation ( krisin blasphēmias ).

"Charge of blasphemy"where 2Pe 2:11 has "blasphēmon krisin ."Peter also has para kuriōi (with the Lord), not in Jude.

Robertson: Jud 1:9

The Lord rebuke thee ( epitimēsai soi kurios ).

First aorist active optative of epitimaō , a wish about the future. These words occur in Zec 3:1-10 where the angel of the Lord replies to the charges of Satan. Clement of Alex. ( Adumb. in Ep. Judae ) says that Jude quoted here the Assumption of Moses , one of the apocryphal books. Origen says the same thing. Mayor thinks that the author of the Assumption of Moses took these words from Zechariah and put them in the mouth of the Archangel Michael. There is a Latin version of the Assumption. Some date it as early as b.c. 2, others after a.d. 44.

Vincent: Jud 1:9

Michael the archangel

Here we strike a peculiarity of this epistle which caused its authority to be impugned in very early times, viz., the apparent citations of apocryphal writings. The passages are Jud 1:9, Jud 1:14, Jud 1:15. This reference to Michael was said by Origen to be founded on a Jewish work called " The Assumption of Moses," the first part of which was lately found in an old Latin translation at Milan; and this is the view of Davidson, so far at least as the words " the Lord rebuke thee" are concerned. Others refer it to Zec 3:1; but there is nothing there about Moses' body, or Michael, or a dispute about the body. Others, again, to a rabbinical comment on Deu 34:6, where Michael is said to have been made guardian of Moses' grave. Doubtless Jude was referring to some accepted story or tradition, probably based on Deu 34:6. For a similar reference to tradition compare 2Ti 3:8; Act 7:22.

Vincent: Jud 1:9

Michael

Angels are described in scripture as forming a society with different orders and dignities. This conception is developed in the books written during and after the exile, especially Daniel and Zechariah. Michael ( Who is like God? ) is one of the seven archangels, and was regarded as the special protector of the Hebrew nation. He is mentioned three times in the Old Testament (Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1), and twice in the New Testament (Jud 1:9; Rev 12:7). He is adored as a saint in the Romish Church. For legends, see Mrs. Jameson, " Sacred and Legendary Art," i., 94 sq.

Vincent: Jud 1:9

A railing accusation ( κρίσιν βλασφημίας )

Lit., a judgment of railing; a sentence savoring of impugning his dignity. Michael remembered the high estate from which he fell, and left his sentence to God.

Wesley: Jud 1:9

It does not appear whether St. Jude learned this by any revelation or from ancient tradition. It suffices, that these things were not only true, but acknowledged as such by them to whom he wrote.

Wesley: Jud 1:9

This word occurs but once more in the sacred writings, 1Th 4:16. So that whether there be one archangel only, or more, it is not possible for us to determine.

Wesley: Jud 1:9

At what time we know not.

Wesley: Jud 1:9

Possibly the devil would have discovered the place where it was buried, which God for wise reasons had concealed.

Wesley: Jud 1:9

Though so far beneath him in every respect. But simply said, (so great was his modesty!) The Lord rebuke thee - I leave thee to the Judge of all.

JFB: Jud 1:9

Nowhere in Scripture is the plural used, "archangels"; but only ONE, "archangel." The only other passage in the New Testament where it occurs, is 1Th 4:16, where Christ is distinguished from the archangel, with whose voice He shall descend to raise the dead; they therefore err who confound Christ with Michael. The name means, Who is like God? In Dan 10:13 he is called "One ('the first,' Margin) of the chief princes." He is the champion angel of Israel. In Rev 12:7 the conflict between Michael and Satan is again alluded to.

JFB: Jud 1:9

His literal body. Satan, as having the power of death, opposed the raising of it again, on the ground of Moses' sin at Meribah, and his murder of the Egyptian. That Moses' body was raised, appears from his presence with Elijah and Jesus (who were in the body) at the Transfiguration: the sample and earnest of the coming resurrection kingdom, to be ushered in by Michael's standing up for God's people. Thus in each dispensation a sample and pledge of the future resurrection was given: Enoch in the patriarchal dispensation, Moses in the Levitical, Elijah in the prophetical. It is noteworthy that the same rebuke is recorded here as was used by the Angel of the Lord, or Jehovah the Second Person, in pleading for Joshua, the representative of the Jewish Church, against Satan, in Zec 3:2; whence some have thought that also here "the body of Moses" means the Jewish Church accused by Satan, before God, for its filthiness, on which ground he demands that divine justice should take its course against Israel, but is rebuked by the Lord who has "chosen Jerusalem": thus, as "the body of Christ" is the Christian Church, so "the body of Moses" is the Jewish Church. But the literal body is evidently here meant (though, secondarily, the Jewish Church is typified by Moses' body, as it was there represented by Joshua the high priest); and Michael, whose connection seems to be so close with Jehovah-Messiah on the one hand, and with Israel on the other, naturally uses the same language as his Lord. As Satan (adversary in court) or the devil (accuser) accuses alike the Church collectively and "the brethren" individually, so Christ pleads for us as our Advocate. Israel's, and all believers' full justification, and the accuser's being rebuked finally, is yet future. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities,4.8], states that God hid Moses' body, lest, if it had been exposed to view, it would have been made an idol of. Jude, in this account, either adopts it from the apocryphal "assumption of Moses" (as ORIGEN [Concerning Principalities, 3.2] thinks), or else from the ancient tradition on which that work was founded. Jude, as inspired, could distinguish how much of the tradition was true, how much false. We have no such means of distinguishing, and therefore can be sure of no tradition, save that which is in the written word.

JFB: Jud 1:9

From reverence for Satan's former dignity (Jud 1:8).

JFB: Jud 1:9

Greek, "judgment of blasphemy," or evil-speaking. Peter said, Angels do not, in order to avenge themselves, rail at dignities, though ungodly, when they have to contend with them: Jude says that the archangel Michael himself did not rail even at the time when he fought with the devil, the prince of evil spirits--not from fear of him, but from reverence of God, whose delegated power in this world Satan once had, and even in some degree still has. From the word "disputed," or debated in controversy, it is plain it was a judicial contest.

Clarke: Jud 1:9

Yet Michael the archangel - Of this personage many things are spoken in the Jewish writings "Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh says: Wherever Michael is said to appear, the glory of the Divine Majesty is always to be understood."Shemoth Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 104, 3. So that it seems as if they considered Michael in some sort as we do the Messiah manifested in the flesh

Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Rev 12:7, it is said: Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon and his angels. The word Michael מיכאל, seems to be compounded of מי mi , who, כ ke , like, and אל El , God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus

Clarke: Jud 1:9

Disputed about the body of Moses - What this means I cannot tell; or from what source St. Jude drew it, unless from some tradition among his countrymen. There is something very like it in Debarim Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 263, 1: "Samael, that wicked one, the prince of the satans, carefully kept the soul of Moses, saying: When the time comes in which Michael shall lament, I shall have my mouth filled with laughter. Michael said to him: Wretch, I weep, and thou laughest. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, because I have fallen; for I shall rise again: when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light; Mic 7:8. By the words, because I have fallen, we must understand the death of Moses; by the words, I shall rise again, the government of Joshua, etc."See the preface

Another contention of Michael with Satan is mentioned in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 43, 3: "At the time in which Isaac was bound there was a contention between Michael and Satan. Michael brought a ram, that Isaac might be liberated; but Satan endeavored to carry off the ram, that Isaac might be slain.

The contention mentioned by Jude is not about the sacrifice of Isaac, nor the soul of Moses, but about the Body of Moses; but why or wherefore we know not. Some think the devil wished to show the Israelites where Moses was buried, knowing that they would then adore his body; and that Michael was sent to resist this discovery

Clarke: Jud 1:9

Durst not bring against him a railing accusation - It was a Jewish maxim, as may be seen in Synopsis Sohar, page 92, note 6: "It is not lawful for man to prefer ignominious reproaches, even against wicked spirits."See Schoettgen

Dr. Macknight says: "In Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1, 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, Zec 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. Zechariah adds, And the Lord, that is, the angel of the Lord, as is plain from Zec 3:1, Zec 3:2, said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan! even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee!"This is the most likely interpretation which I have seen; and it will appear the more probable when it is considered that, among the Hebrews, גוף guph , Body, is often used for a thing itself. So, in Rom 7:24, σωμα της ἁμαρτιας, the body of sin, signifies sin itself; so the body of Moses, גוף של משה guph shel Mosheh , may signify Moses himself; or that in which he was particularly concerned, viz., his institutes, religion, etc

It may be added, that the Jews consider Michael and Samael, one as the friend, the other as the enemy, of Israel. Samael is their accuser, Michael their advocate. "Michael and Samael stand before the Lord; Satan accuses, but Michael shows the merits of Israel. Satan endeavors to speak, but Michael silences him: Hold thy tongue, says he, and let us hear what the Judge determines; for it is written, He will speak peace to his people, and to his saints; Psa 85:8."Shemoth Rabba, sec. xviii. fol. 117, 3.

Calvin: Jud 1:9

9.Yet Michael the archangel. Peter gives this argument shorter, and states generally, that angels, far more excellent than men, dare not bring forward a railing judgment. [2Pe 2:11.]

But as this history is thought to have been taken from an apocryphal book, it has hence happened that less weight has been attached to this Epistle. But since the Jews at that time had many things from the traditions of the fathers, I see nothing unreasonable in saying that Jude referred to what had already been handed down for many ages. I know indeed that many puerilities had obtained the name of tradition, as at this day the Papists relate as traditions many of the silly dotages of the monks; but this is no reason why they should not have had some historical facts not committed to writing.

It is beyond controversy that Moses was buried by the Lord, that is, that his grave was concealed according to the known purpose of God. And the reason for concealing his grave is evident to all, that is, that the Jews might not bring forth his body to promote superstition. What wonder then is it, when the body of the prophet was hidden by God, Satan should attempt to make it known; and that angels, who are ever ready to serve God, should on the other hand resist him? And doubtless we see that Satan almost in all ages has been endeavoring to make the bodies of God’s saints idols to foolish men. Therefore this Epistle ought not to be suspected on account of this testimony, though it is not found in Scripture.

That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God; but he chooses this or that to do his business as he pleases. What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah,

“Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan.”
(Zec 3:2.)

And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to God to be restrained; but those men hesitated not to load with extreme reproaches the powers which God had adorned with peculiar honors.

Defender: Jud 1:9

This fascinating incident is never mentioned elsewhere in Scripture; in fact, the burial place of Moses is said to be known only to the Lord (Deu 34:6). However, a pseudepigraphical work called The Assumption of Moses , preserved now only as a fragment, seems to have recorded the story, and Jude may either have obtained it from that source or received it by direct revelation. In either case, its inclusion in Jude's inspired epistle is enough to confirm its actual occurrence. Satan evidently wanted the body of Moses for some purpose involving deception of God's people, hoping, perhaps, to lead them to doubt God again, or even to lapse back into idolatry, worshipping Moses' body or some idol spirit professing to be Moses. No one knows, but in any case God would not allow it, and He Himself buried Moses in a secret grave.

Defender: Jud 1:9

The reason Jude introduced this event in his epistle was to stress the dangerous impropriety of speaking evil or speaking disdainfully of exalted angels in God's hierarchy of creation, let alone of God Himself. Michael is one of God's archangels, yet Satan (Lucifer) had once been the highest of all as the anointed cherub over God's throne (Eze 28:14). Even though he had fallen from heaven, he was still treated with great respect by Michael when contending with him.

Defender: Jud 1:9

See Zec 3:2 for a very similar response to Satan when disputing about God's high priest."

TSK: Jud 1:9

Michael : It is most probable, that the Apostle took this account concerning Michael, and that of the prophesying of Enoch, from an ancient tradition preserved and well known among the Jews. Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21, Dan 12:1; Rev 12:7

archangel : 1Th 4:16

the body : Deu 34:6

durst : Exo 22:28; Isa 36:13-21; Mar 15:29; Luk 23:39, Luk 23:40; 1Pe 3:9; 2Pe 2:11

The Lord : 1Ch 12:17; Isa 37:3, Isa 37:4, Isa 37:10-20; Zec 3:2

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Jud 1:9

Yet Michael the archangel ... - This verse has given more perplexity to expositors than any other part of the Epistle; and in fact the difficulties in regard to it have been so great that some have been led to regard the Epistle as spurious. The difficulty has arisen from these two circumstances:

(1)    Ignorance of the origin of what is said here of Michael the archangel, nothing of this kind being found in the Old Testament; and,

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 he improbability of the story itself, which looks like a mere Jewish fable.

Peter 2Pe 2:2 made a general reference to angels as not bringing railing accusations against others before the Lord; but Jude refers to a particular case - the case of Michael when contending about the body of Moses. The methods proposed of reconciling the passage with the proper ideas of inspiration have been various, though perhaps no one of them relieves it of all difficulty. It would be inconsistent with the design of these notes to go into an extended examination of this passage. Those who wish to see a full investigation of it may consult Michaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament , vol. iv. pp. 378-393; Lardner, vol. vi. p. 312ff; Hug, Introduction Section 183; Benson, in loc.; Rosenmuller’ s Morgenland , iii. pp. 196, 197; and Wetstein, in loc. The principal methods of relieving the difficulty have been the following:

I. Some have supposed that the reference is to the passage in Zechariah, Zec 3:1, following "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan,"etc. The opinion that Jude refers to this passage was held by Lardner. But the objections to this are very obvious:

\tx720 \tx1080 (1)    There is no similarity between the two, except the expression, "the Lord rebuke thee."

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 he name Michael does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 here is no mention made of the "body of Moses"there, and no allusion to it whatever.

(4)\caps1     t\caps0 here is no intimation that there was any such contention about his body. There is a mere mention that Satan resisted the angel of the Lord, as seen in the vision, but no intimation that the controversy had "any"reference to Moses in any way.

(5)\caps1     t\caps0 he reason of the resistance which Satan offered to the angel in the vision as seen by Zechariah is stated. It was in regard to the consecration of Joshua to the office of high priest implying a return of prosperity to Jerusalem, and the restoration of the worship of God there in its purity; see Zec 3:2. To this Satan was of course opposed, and the vision represents him as resisting the angel in his purpose thus to set him apart to that office. These reasons seem to me to make it clear that Jude did not refer to the passage in Zechariah, nor is there any other place in the Old Testament to which it can be supposed he had reference.

II. Hug supposes that the reference here, as well as that in Jud 1:14, to the prophecy of Enoch, is derived from some apocryphal books existing in the time of Jude; and that though those books contained mere fables, the apostle appealed to them, not as conceding what was said to be true, but in order to refute and rebuke those against whom he wrote, out of books which they admitted to be of authority. Introduction Section 183. Arguments and confutations, he says, drawn from the sacred Scriptures, would have been of no avail in reasoning with them, for these they evaded 2Pe 3:16, and there were no surer means of influencing them than those writings which they themselves valued as the sources of their special views. According to this, the apostle did not mean to vouch for the truth of the story, but merely to make use of it in argument. The objection to this is, that the apostle does in fact seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true. He speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the death of Moses, or of his smiting the rock, or of his leading the children of Israel across the Red Sea, or of any other fact in history. If he regarded it as a mere fable, though it would have been honest and consistent with all proper views of inspiration for him to have said to those against whom he argued, that on their own principles such and such things were true, yet it would not be honest to speak of it as a fact which he admitted to be true. Besides, it should be remembered that he is not arguing with them, in which case it might be admissible reason in this way, but was making statements to others about them, and showing that they manifested a spirit entirely different from that which the angels evinced even when contending in a just cause against the prince of all evil.

III. It has been supposed that the apostle quotes an apocryphal book existing in his time, containing this account, and that he means to admit that the account is true. Origen mentions such a book, called "the Assumption of Moses,"( Αναληψις του Μωσεως Analēpsis tou Mōseōs ,) as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account here. That book is now lost. There is still extant a book in Hebrew, called פטירת משׁה paTiyret Mosheh - "the Death of Moses,"which some have supposed to be the book referred to by Origen. "That"book contains many fabulous stories about the death of Moses, and is evidently the work of some Jew drawing wholly upon his imagination. An account of it may be seen in Michaelis, Introduction iv. p. 381ff. There is no reason to suppose that this is the same book referred to by Origen under the name of "the Assumption of Moses;"and there is a moral certainty that an inspired writer could not have quoted it as of authority. Further, there can be no reasonable doubt that such a book as Origen refers to, under the title of "the Assumption of Moses,"was extant in "his"time, but that does not prove by any means that it was extant in the time of Jude, or that he quoted it. There is, indeed, no positive proof that it was "not"extant in the time of Jude, but there is none that it was, and all the facts in the case will be met by the supposition that it was written afterward, and that the tradition on the subject here referred to by Jude was incorporated into it.

IV. The remaining supposition is, that Jude here refers to a prevalent "tradition"among the Jews, and that he has adopted it as containing an important truth, and one which bore on the subject under discussion. In support of this, it may be observed,

\tx720 \tx1080 (a)\caps1     t\caps0 hat it is well known that there were many traditions of this nature among the Jews. See the notes at Mat 15:2.

(b)    That though many of these traditions were puerile and false, yet there is no reason to doubt that some of them might have been founded in truth.

©    That an inspired writer might select those which were true, for the illustration of his subject, with as much propriety as he might select what was written; since if what was thus handed down by tradition was true, it was as proper to use it as to use a fact made known in any other way.

(d)    That in fact such traditions were adopted by the inspired writers when they would serve to illustrate a subject which they were discussing. Thus Paul refers to the tradition about Jannes and Jambres as true history. See the notes at 2Ti 3:8.

(e)    If, therefore, what is here said was true, there was no impropriety in its being referred to by Jude as an illustration of his subject.

The only material question then is, whether it is "true."And who can prove that it is not? What evidence is there that it is not? How is it possible to demonstrate that it is not? There are many allusions in the Bible to angels; there is express mention of such an angel as Michael Dan 12:1; there is frequent mention of the devil; and there are numerous affirmations that both bad and good angels are employed in important transactions on the earth. Who can prove that such spirits never meet, never come in conflict, never encounter each other in executing their purposes? Good men meet bad men, and why is it any more absurd to suppose that good angels may encounter bad ones? It should be remembered, further, that there is no need of supposing that the subject of the dispute was about burying the body of Moses; or that Michael sought to bury it, and the devil endeavored to prevent it - the one in order that it might not be worshipped by the Israelites, and the other that it might be.

This indeed became incorporated into the tradition in the apocryphal books which were afterward written; but Jude says not one word of this, and is in no way responsible for it. All that he says is, that there was a contention or dispute ( διακρινόμενος διελέγετο diakrinomenos dielegeto respecting "his body."But when it was, or what was the occasion, or how it was conducted, he does "not"state, and we have no right to ascribe to him sentiments which he has not expressed. If ever such a controversy of any kind existed respecting that body, it is all that Jude affirms, and is all for which he should be held responsible. The sum of the matter, then, it seems to me is, that Jude has, as Paul did on another occasion, adopted a tradition which was prevalent in his time; that there is nothing necessarily absurd or impossible in the fact affirmed by the tradition, and that no one can possibly demonstrate that it is not true.

The archangel - The word "archangel"occurs only in one other place in the Scriptures. See the notes at 1Th 4:16. It means "ruling or chief"angel - the chief among the hosts of heaven. It is nowhere else applied to Michael, though his name is several times mentioned, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; Rev 12:7.

When contending - This word ( διακρινόμενος diakrinomenos ) refers here to a contention or strife with words - "a disputation."Nothing farther is necessarily implied, for it is so used in this sense in the New Testament, Act 11:2, Act 11:12, ("Greek.")

He disputed - διαλέγομαι dialegomai . "This"word also would denote merely a controversy or contention of words, Mar 9:34; Act 17:2, Act 17:17; Act 18:4, Act 18:19; Act 24:12.

About the body of Moses - The nature of this controversy is wholly unknown, and conjecture is useless. It is not said, however, that there was a strife which should get the body, or a contention about burying it, or any physical contention about it whatever. That there "may"have been, no one indeed can disprove; but all that the apostle says would be met by a supposition that there was any debate of any kind respecting that body, in which Michael, though provoked by the opposition of the worst being in the universe, still restrained himself from any outbreaking of passion, and used only the language of mild but firm rebuke.

Durst not - οῦκ ἐτόλμησεν ouk etolmēsen - "Did not dare."It is not said that he did not dare to do it because he feared Satan; but all that the word implies is met by supposing that he did not dare to do it because he feared the Lord, or because in any circumstances it would be wrong.

A railing accusation - The Greek word is "blasphemy."The meaning is, he did not indulge in the language of mere reproach: and it is implied here that such language would be wrong anywhere. If it would be right to bring a railing accusation against any one, it would be against the devil.

But said, The Lord rebuke thee - The word here used ( ἐπιτιμάω epitimaō ) means, properly, to put honor upon; and then to adjudge or confirm. Then it came to be used in the sense of commanding or "restraining"- as, e. g., the winds and waves, Mat 8:26; Mar 4:39. Then it is used in the sense of "admonishing strongly;"of enjoining upon one, "with the idea of censure,"Mat 18:18; Mar 1:25; Luk 4:35, Luk 4:41. This is the idea here - the expression of a wish that "the Lord"would take the matter of the dispute to himself, and that he would properly restrain and control Satan, with the implied idea that his conduct was wrong. The language is the same as that recorded in Zec 3:2, as used by "the angel"respecting Satan. But, as before observed, there is no reason to suppose that the apostle referred to that. The fact, however, that the angel is said to have used the language on that occasion may be allowed to give confirmation to what is said here, since it shows that it is the language which angelic beings naturally employ.

Poole: Jud 1:9

Michael the archangel: either this is understood of Christ the Prince of angels, who is often in Scripture called an Angel, or of a created angel; and that either:

1. One of the archangels: Dan 10:13 , Michael is called one of the chief princes, which though the word archangel be not found in the plural number in Scripture, may well imply a plurality of them; for what is one of the chief princes among the angels, but an archangel? Or:

2. A principal angel, or one that is chief among others.

When contending with the devil; it may be meant either of Christ contending with the devil, as Mat 4:1-25 , in his temptation, and Zec 3:1,2 , and Rev 12:7 ; or rather, of Michael, a created angel.

He disputed about the body of Moses:

1. If Michael the archangel be meant of Christ, then the body of Moses may be taken figuratively, for that body whereof the Mosaical ceremonies were shadows, Col 2:17 , i.e. the truth and accomplishment of the law given by Moses; that accomplishment was to be in Christ, who is represented by Joshua, Zec 3:1-10 : him Satan resists in the execution of his office, and by him strikes at Christ, whose type he was, and whom he afterward opposeth in the execution of his office, when he was come in the flesh. Or:

2. If we take Michael for a created angel, which agrees best with the parallel place in Peter, then the body of Moses must be taken properly, (as most take it), and the dispute seems to be: Whether Moses’ s body should be so buried as to be concealed from the Israelites? Deu 34:6 , it is said God buried him, ( which might be by the ministry of Michael the archangel), and that no man knoweth of his sepulchre. The devil opposeth the angel, desiring to have the place of his burial known, that in after-times it might be a snare to that people, and a means to bring them to idolatry. And this seems very probable, if we consider what work the devil hath made in the world with the bodies of saints and martyrs, and how much idolatry he hath brought in thereby. This passage Jude, most probably, had (as was observed in the argument) from some known tradition among the Jews, the truth of which we are now sure of, because certified here concerning it.

Durst not bring against him; or, could not endure, (as the Greek word is often taken among profane writers), or find in his heart, not from fear of punishment, but by reason of the holiness of his own nature, and to give an example to us. And this sense agrees to the scope of the place, whether we understand it of Christ, or of a created angel, Heb 12:3 1Pe 2:23 .

A railing accusation: see 2Pe 2:11 .

But said, The Lord rebuke thee; i.e. put thee to silence, restrain thy insolence, hinder thy design, &c.: hereby the angel refers the cause to God.

Haydock: Jud 1:9

When Michael, &c. We do not find this in any other canonical Scripture, so that St. Jude must either have had it from some tradition among the Jews, or from some writing which he, by the Spirit of God, knew to be true. It is not expressed on what account this dispute or strife was, betwixt St. Michael and the devil, about the body of Moses. The common interpretation is, that St. Michael conveyed the body of Moses out of the way, and from the knowledge of the Israelites, lest they should pay to it some idolatrous worship; whereas the devil, for that end, would have it buried, so that the people might know the place and adore it. See Deuteronomy xxxiv. 6. where it is said, "and no man hath known of his sepulchre until this present day." (Witham) ---

Contended about the body, &c. This contention, which is no where else mentioned in holy writ, was originally known by revelation, and transmitted by tradition. It is thought the occasion of it was, that the devil would have had the body buried in such a place and manner, as to be worshipped by the Jews with divine honours. ---

Command thee, or, rebuke thee. (Challoner)

Gill: Jud 1:9

Yet Michael the archangel,.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan 10:21. So Philo the Jew ^o calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel; Uriel is called the archangel in this passage from the Apocrypha:

"And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance.'' (2 Esdras 4:36)

when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses; which some understand literally of the fleshly and natural body of Moses, buried by the Lord himself, partly out of respect to him; and partly, as some think, lest the Israelites should be tempted to an idolatrous worship of him; but rather it was to show that the law of Moses was to be abolished and buried by Christ, never to rise more: and they think that this dispute was either about the burying of his body, or the taking of it up again; Satan on the one hand insisting upon the taking of it up, in order to induce the Israelites to worship him, and Michael, on the other hand, opposing it, to prevent this idolatry; but then the difficulty is, where Jude should have this account, since the Scriptures are silent about it. Some have thought that he took it out of an apocryphal book, called "the Ascension of Moses", as Origen ^p, which is not likely; others, that he had it by tradition, by which means the Apostle Paul came by the names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres; and some passages are referred to in some of their writings ^q, as having some traces of this dispute; but in them the discourse is not concerning the body, but the soul of Moses; not concerning burying or taking up of his body, when buried, but concerning the taking away of his soul, when he was alive; which none of the angels caring to undertake, at length Samael, the chief of devils, did, but without success, wherefore God took it away with a kiss himself: besides, the apostle produces this history as a thing well known; nor is it reasonable to suppose that such an altercation should be between Michael, and the devil, on such an account; or that it was in order to draw Israel into idolatry on the one hand, and on the other hand to prevent it; since never was the custom of the Israelites to worship their progenitors or heroes; nor did they seem so well disposed to Moses in his lifetime; nor was there any necessity of taking up his body, were they inclined to give him honour and worship; yea, the sight of his dead body would rather have prevented than have encouraged it: but this is to be understood figuratively; and reference is had to the history in Zec 3:1; as appears from the latter part of this verse: some think the priesthood of Christ is intended, which was the end, the sum and substance, of the law of Moses; and seeing that Joshua, the high priest, was a type of Christ, and the angel of the Lord contended with Satan about him, he might be said to dispute with him about the body of Moses; but this sense makes a type of a type, and Christ to contend about himself; besides, this should rather be called the body of Christ than of Moses, others think that the temple of the Jews is meant about the rebuilding of which the contention is thought to be; and which may be called the body of Moses, as the church is called the body of Christ; though it should be observed, that the temple is never so called, and that not the place where the church meets, but the church itself, is called the body of Christ: but it is best of all to understand it of the law of Moses, which is sometimes called Moses himself, Joh 5:45; and so the body of Moses, or the body of his laws, the system of them; just as we call a system of laws, and of divinity, such an one's body of laws, and such an one's body of divinity: and this agrees with the language of the Jews, who say ^r, of statutes, service, purification, &c. that they are גופי התורה, "the bodies of the law"; and so of Misnic treatises, as those which concern the offerings of turtle doves, and the purification of menstruous women, that they are גופי, "the bodies" of the traditions ^s, that is, the sum and substance of them: so the decalogue is said ^t to be "the body of the Shema", or "Hear, O Israel", Deu 6:4, so Clemens of Alexandria ^u says, that there are some who consider the body of the Scriptures, the words and names, as if they were, το σωμα του μωσεως, "the body of Moses" ^w. Now the law of Moses was restored in the time of Joshua the high priest, by Ezra and Nehemiah. Joshua breaks some of these laws, and is charged by Satan as guilty, who contended and insisted upon it that he should suffer for it; so that this dispute or contention might be said to be about the body of Moses, that is, the body of Moses's law, which Joshua had broken; in which dispute Michael, or the angel of the Lord, even the Lord Jesus Christ himself,

durst not bring against him a railing accusation; that is, not that he was afraid of the devil, but though he could have given harder words, or severer language, and which the other deserved, yet he chose not to do it, he would not do it; in which sense the word "durst", or "dare", is used in Rom 5:7,

but said, the Lord rebuke thee; for thy malice and insolence; see Zec 3:2; and this mild and gentle way of using even the devil himself agrees with Christ's conduct towards him, when tempted by him in the wilderness, and when in his agony with him in the garden, and amidst all his reproaches and sufferings on the cross. And now the argument is from the greater to the lesser, that if Christ, the Prince of angels, did not choose to give a railing word to the devil, who is so much inferior to him, and when there was so much reason and occasion for it; then how great is the insolence of these men, that speak evil of civil and ecclesiastical rulers, without any just cause at all?

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Jud 1:9

¹ tn The word “even” is not in Greek; it is implied by the height of the contrast.

² sn According to Jewish intertestamental literature (such as 1 En. 20), Michael was one of seven archangels.

³ tn The sentence structure is a bit different in Greek. Literally it reads: “But Michael the archangel, when arguing with the devil and disputing.”

Geneva Bible: Jud 1:9

^{( 7 )} 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.

^{( 7 )} An argument of comparison: Michael one of the chiefest angels, was content to deliver Satan, although a most accursed enemy, to the judgment of God to be punished: and these perverse men are not ashamed to speak evil of the powers who are ordained of God.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Jude

1 He exhorts them to be constant in the profession of the faith.

4 False teachers are crept in to seduce them, for whose evil doctrine and manners horrible punishment is prepared;

20 whereas the godly, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and prayers to God, may persevere, and grow in grace, and keep themselves, and recover others out of the snares of those deceivers.

MHCC: Jud 1:8-16

False teachers are dreamers; they greatly defile and grievously wound the soul. These teachers are of a disturbed mind and a seditious spirit; forgetting that the powers that be, are ordained of God, Rom 13:1. As to the contest about the body of Moses, it appears that Satan wished to make the place of his burial known to the Israelites, in order to tempt them to worship him, but he was prevented, and vented his rage in desperate blasphemy. This should remind all who dispute never to bring railing charges. Also learn hence, that we ought to defend those whom God owns. It is hard, if not impossible, to find any enemies to the Christian religion, who did not, and do not, live in open or secret contradiction to the principles of natural religion. Such are here compared to brute beasts, though they often boast of themselves as the wisest of mankind. They corrupt themselves in the things most open and plain. The fault lies, not in their understandings, but in their depraved wills, and their disordered appetites and affections. It is a great reproach, though unjust to religion, when those who profess it are opposed to it in heart and life. The Lord will remedy this in his time and way; not in men's blind way of plucking up the wheat with the tares. It is sad when men begin in the Spirit, and end in the flesh. Twice dead; they had been once dead in their natural, fallen state; but now they are dead again by the evident proofs of their hypocrisy. Dead trees, why cumber they the ground! Away with them to the fire. Raging waves are a terror to sailing passengers; but when they get into port, the noise and terror are ended. False teachers are to expect the worst punishments in this world and in that to come. They glare like meteors, or falling stars, and then sink into the blackness of darkness for ever. We have no mention of the prophecy of Enoch in any other part or place of Scripture; yet one plain text of Scripture, proves any point we are to believe. We find from this, that Christ's coming to judge was prophesied of, as early as the times before the flood. The Lord cometh: what a glorious time will that be! Notice how often the word " ungodly" is repeated. Many now do not at all refer to the terms godly, or ungodly, unless it be to mock at even the words; but it is not so in the language taught us by the Holy Ghost. Hard speeches of one another, especially if ill-grounded, will certainly come into account at the day of judgment. These evil men and seducers are angry at every thing that happens, and never pleased with their own state and condition. Their will and their fancy, are their only rule and law. Those who please their sinful appetites, are most prone to yield to ungovernable passions. The men of God, from the beginning of the world, have declared the doom denounced on them. Such let us avoid. We are to follow men only as they follow Christ.

Matthew Henry: Jud 1:8-15

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

I. The character of these deceivers is described.

1. They defile the flesh. The flesh or body is the immediate seat, and often the irritating occasion, of many horrid pollutions; yet these, though done in and against the body, do greatly defile and grievously maim and wound the soul. Fleshly lusts do war against the soul, 1Pe 2:11. and in 2Co 7:1 we read of filthiness of flesh and spirit, each of which, though of different kinds, defiles the whole man.

2. They despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, are of a disturbed mind and a seditious spirit, forgetting that the powers that be are ordained of God, Rom 13:1. God requires us to speak evil of no man (Tit 3:2.); but it is a great aggravation of the sin of evil-speaking when what we say is pointed at magistrates, men whom God has set in authority over us, by blaspheming or speaking evil of whom we blaspheme God himself. Or if we understand it, as some do, with respect to religion, which ought to have the dominion in this lower world, such evil-speakers despise the dominion of conscience, make a jest of it, and would banish it out of the world; and as for the word of God, the rule of conscience, they despise it. The revelations of the divine will go for little with them; they are a rule of faith and manners, but not till they have explained them, and imposed their sense of them upon all about them. Or, as others account for the sense of this passage, the people of God, truly and specially so, are the dignities here spoken of or referred to, according to that of the psalmist, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm, Psa 105:15. They speak evil, etc. Religion and its serious professors have been always and every where evil spoken of. Though there is nothing in religion but what is very good, and deserves our highest regards, both as it is perfective of our natures and as it is subservient to our truest and highest interests; yet this sect, as its enemies are pleased to call it, is every where spoken against, Act 28:22.

On this occasion the apostle brings in Michael the archangel, etc., Jud 1:9. Interpreters are at a loss what is here meant by the body of Moses. Some think that the devil contended that Moses might have a public and honourable funeral, that the place where he was interred might be generally known, hoping thereby to draw the Jews, so naturally prone thereto, to a new and fresh instance of idolatry. Dr. Scott thinks that by the body of Moses we are to understand the Jewish church, whose destruction the devil strove and contended for, as the Christian church is called the body of Christ in the New Testament style. Others bring other interpretations, which I will not here trouble the reader with. Though this contest was mightily eager and earnest, and Michael was victorious in the issue, yet he would not bring a railing accusation against the devil himself; he knew a good cause needed no such weapons to be employed in its defence. It is said, he durst not bring, etc. Why durst he not? Not that he was afraid of the devil, but he believed God would be offended if, in such a dispute, he went that way to work; he thought it below him to engage in a trial of skill with the great enemy of God and man which of them should out-scold or out-rail the other: a memorandum to all disputants, never to bring railing accusations into their disputes. Truth needs no supports from falsehood or scurrility. Some say, Michael would not bring a railing accusation against the devil as knowing beforehand that he would be too hard for him at that weapon. Some think the apostle refers here to the remarkable passage we have, Num 20:7-14. Satan would have represented Moses under disadvantageous colours, which he, good man, had at that time, and upon that occasion, given but too much handle for. Now Michael, according to this account, stands up in defence of Moses, and, in the zeal of an upright and bold spirit, says to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee. He would not stand disputing with the devil, nor enter into a particular debate about the merits of that special cause. He knew Moses was his fellow-servant, a favourite of God, and he would not patiently suffer him to be insulted, no, not by the prince of devils; but in a just indignation cries out, The Lord rebuke thee: like that of our Lord himself (Mat 4:10), Get thee hence, Satan. Moses was a dignity, a magistrate, one beloved and preferred by the great God; and the archangel thought it insufferable that such a one should be so treated by a vile apostate spirit, of how high an order soever. So the lesson hence is that we ought to stand up in defence of those whom God owns, how severe soever Satan and his instruments may be in their censures of them and their conduct. Those who censure (in particular) upright magistrates, upon every slip in their behaviour, may expect to hear, The Lord rebuke thee; and divine rebukes are harder to be borne than careless sinners now think for.

3. They speak evil of the things which they know not, etc., Jud 1:10. Observe, Those who speak evil of religion and godliness speak evil of the things which they know not; for, if they had known them, they would have spoken well of them, for nothing but good and excellent can be truly said of religion, and it is sad that any thing different or opposite should ever be justly said of any of its professors. A religious life is the most safe, happy, comfortable, and honourable life that is. Observe, further, Men are most apt to speak evil of those persons and things that they know least of. How many had never suffered by slanderous tongues if they had been better known! On the other hand, retirement screens some even from just censure. But what they know naturally, etc. It is hard, if not impossible, to find any obstinate enemies to the Christian religion, who do not in their stated course live in open or secret contradiction to the very principles of natural religion: this many think hard and uncharitable; but I am afraid it will appear too true in the day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God. The apostle likens such to brute beasts, though they often think and boast themselves, if not as the wisest, yet at least as the wittiest part of mankind. In those things they corrupt themselves; that is, in the plainest and most natural and necessary things, things that lie most open and obvious to natural reason and conscience; even in those things they corrupt, debase, and defile themselves: the fault, whatever it is, lies not in their understanding or apprehensions, but in their depraved wills and disordered appetites and affections; they could and might have acted better, but then they must have offered violence to those vile affections which they obstinately chose rather to gratify than to mortify.

4. In Jud 1:11 the apostle represents them as followers of Cain, and in Jud 1:12, Jud 1:13, as atheistical and profane people, who thought little, and perhaps believed not much, of God or a future world - as greedy and covetous, who, so they could but gain present worldly advantages, cared not what came next - rebels against God and man, who, like Core, ran into attempts in which they must assuredly perish, as he did. Of such the apostle further says, (1.) These are spots in your feasts of charity - the agapai or love-feasts, so much spoken of by the ancients. They happened, by whatever means or mischance, to be admitted among them, but were spots in them, defiled and defiling. Observe, It is a great reproach, though unjust and accidental, to religion, when those who profess it, and join in the most solemn institution of it, are in heart and life unsuitable and even contrary to it: These are spots. Yet how common in all Christian societies here on earth, the very best not excepted, are such blemishes! The more is the pity. The Lord remedy it in his due time and way, not in men's blind and rigorous way of plucking up the wheat with the tares. But in the heaven we are waiting, hoping, and preparing for, there is none of this mad work, there are none of these disorderly doings. (2.) When they feast with you, they feed themselves without fear. Arrant gluttons, no doubt, there were; such as minded only the gratifying of their appetites with the daintiness and abundance of their fare; they had no regard to Solomon's caution, Pro 23:2. Note, In common eating and drinking a holy fear is necessary, much more in feasting, though we may sometimes be more easily and insensibly overcome at a common meal than at a feast; for, in the case supposed, we are less upon our guard, and sometimes, at least to some persons, the plenty of a feast is its own antidote, as to others it may prove a dangerous snare. (3.) Clouds they are without water, which promise rain in time of drought, but perform nothing of what they promise. Such is the case of formal professors, who at first setting out promise much, like early-blossoming trees in a forward spring, but in conclusion bring forth little or no fruit. - Carried about of winds, light and empty, easily driven about this way or that, as the wind happens to set; such are empty, ungrounded professors, and easy prey to every seducer. It is amazing to hear many talk so confidently of so many things of which they know little or nothing, and yet have not the wisdom and humility to discern and be sensible how little they know. How happy would our world be if men either knew more or practically knew how little they know. (4.) Trees whose fruit withereth, etc. Trees they are, for they are planted in the Lord's vineyard, yet fruitless ones. Observe, Those whose fruit withereth may be justly said to be without fruit. As good never a whit as never the better. It is a sad thing when men seem to begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh, which is almost as common a case as it is an awful one. The text speaks of such as were twice dead. One would think to be once dead were enough; we none of us, till grace renew us to a higher degree than ordinary, love to think of dying once, though this is appointed for us all. What then is the meaning of this being twice dead? They had been once dead in their natural, fallen, lapsed state; but they seemed to recover, and, as a man in a swoon, to be brought to life again, when they took upon them the profession of the Christian religion. But now they are dead again by the evident proofs they have given of their hypocrisy: whatever they seemed, they had nothing truly vital in them. - Plucked up by the roots, as we commonly serve dead trees, from which we expect no more fruit. They are dead, dead, dead; why cumber they the ground? Away with them to the fire. (5.) Raging waves of the sea, boisterous, noisy, and clamorous; full of talk and turbulency, but with little (if any) sense or meaning: Foaming out their own shame, creating much uneasiness to men of better sense and calmer tempers, which yet will in the end turn to their own greater shame and just reproach. The psalmist's prayer ought always to be that of every honest and good man, " Let integrity and uprightness preserve me (Psa 25:21), and, if it will not, let me be unpreserved."If honesty signify little now, knavery will signify much less, and that in a very little while. Raging waves are a terror to sailing passengers; but, when they have got to port, the waves are forgotten as if no longer in being: their noise and terror are for ever ended. (6.) Wandering stars, planets that are erratic in their motions, keep not that steady regular course which the fixed ones do, but shift their stations, that one has sometimes much ado to know where to find them. This allusion carries in it a very lively emblem of false teachers, who are sometimes here and sometimes there, so that one knows not where nor how to fix them. In the main things, at least, one would think something should be fixed and steady; and this might be without infallibility, or any pretensions to it in us poor mortals. In religion and politics, the great subjects of present debate, surely there are certain stamina in which wise and good, honest and disinterested, men might agree, without throwing the populace into the utmost anguish and distress of mind, or blowing up their passions into rage and fury, without letting them know what they say or whereof they affirm.

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

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

I cannot pass Jud 1:15 without taking notice how often, and how emphatically, the word ungodly is repeated in it, no fewer than four times: ungodly men, ungodly sinners, ungodly deeds, and, as to the manner, ungodly committed. Godly or ungodly signifies little with men now-a-days, unless it be to scoff at and deride even the very expressions; but it is not so in the language of the Holy Ghost. Note, Omissions, as well as commissions, must be accounted for in the day of judgment. Note, further, Hard speeches of one another, especially if ill-grounded, will most certainly come into account at the judgment of the great day. Let us all take care in time. "If thou,"says one of our good old puritans, "smite (a miscalled heretic, or) a schismatic, and God find a real saint bleeding, look thou to it, how thou wilt answer it."It may be too late to say before the angel that it was an error, Ecc 5:6. I only here allude to that expression of the divinely inspired writer.

Barclay: Jud 1:8-9

Jude begins this passage by comparing the evil men with the false prophets whom Scripture condemns. Deu 13:1-5sets down what is to be done with "the prophet or the dreamer of dreams" who corrupts the nations and seduces the people, from their loyalty to God. Such a prophet is to be mercilessly killed. These men whom Jude attacks are false prophets, dreamers of false dreams, seducers of the people, and must be treated as such. Their false teaching issued in two things.

(i) It made them defile the flesh. We have already seen the twofold direction of their teaching on the flesh. First, the flesh was entirely evil, and, therefore, of no importance; and so the instincts of the body could be given their way without control. Second, the grace of God was all-forgiving and all-sufficient and therefore, sin did not matter since grace would forgive every sin. Sin was only the means whereby grace was given its opportunity to operate.

(ii) They despised angels. Celestial powers and angelic glories are names for ranks of angels within the angelic hierarchy. This follows immediately after the citing of Sodom and Gomorrah as dreadful examples; and part of the sin of Sodom was the desire of its people to misuse its angelic visitors (Gen 19:1-11). The men Jude attacks spoke evil of the angels. To prove how terrible a thing that was Jude cites an instance from an apocryphal book, The Assumption of Moses. One of the strange things about Jude is that he so often makes his quotations from these apocryphal books. Such quotations seem strange to us; but these books were very widely used at the time when Jude was writing and the quotations would be very effective.

The story in The Assumption of Moses runs as follows. The strange story of the death of Moses is told in Deu 34:1-6. The Assumption of Moses goes on to add the further story that the task of burying the body of Moses was given to the archangel Michael. The devil disputed with Michael for possession of the body. He based his claim on two grounds. Moses' body was matter; matter was evil; and, therefore, the body belonged to him, for matter was his domain. Second, Moses was a murderer, for had not he slain the Egyptian whom he saw smiting the Hebrew (Exo 2:11-12). And, if he was a murderer, the devil had a claim on his body. The point Jude is making is this. Michael was engaged on a task given him by God; the devil was seeking to stop him and was making claims he had no right to make. But even in a collection of circumstances like that Michael spoke no evil of the devil but simply said, "The Lord rebuke you!" If the greatest of the good angels refused to speak evil of the greatest of the evil angels, even in circumstances like that, surely no human being may speak evil of any angel.

What the men Jude is attacking were saying about the angels we do not know. Perhaps they were saying that they did not exist; perhaps they were saying they were evil. This passage means very little to us, but no doubt it would be a weighty rebuke to those to whom Jude addressed it.

Constable: 3Jo 1:9--Jud 1:10

B. Diotrephes' Lack of Love vv. 9-11

Gaius' good example stands out more clearly beside Diotrephes' bad example. Diotrephes is a rare name and means "nourished by Zeus."¹³ John brought Diotrephes into the picture to clarify the responsibility of Gaius and all other readers of this epistle and to give instructions concerning this erring brother.

v. 9 The letter to the church of which both Gaius and Diotrephes were a part is not extant. "Them" refers to the believers in that church. John exposed Diotrephes' motivation as pride. Diotrephes had persistently (present tense in Greek) put John down to exalt himself. John did not say or imply that Diotrephes held false doctrine. He only blamed his ambition.¹⁴

"The temptation to use a role in the Christian assembly as a means of self-gratification remains a real one that all servants of God need to resist."¹⁵

v. 10 John promised and warned that whenever he might visit that congregation he would point out Diotrephes' sinful behavior, assuming it continued. Specifically Diotrephes was charging John falsely to elevate himself. Worse than that he was not giving hospitality to visiting brethren, as Gaius was, perhaps because he perceived them as a threat to himself. Third, he intimidated others in the church and forced them to stop welcoming these men.

"Diotrephes was condemned not because he violated sound teaching regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ but because his life' was a contradiction to the truth of the gospel."¹⁶

"The verb ekballei, in the present tense again (literally, he throws out'), need not imply formal excommunication from the Church, as this became known later. Cf. Matt 18:17; Luke 6:22; John 9:34-35; 1 Cor 5:2. On the other hand, it seems as if Diotrephes had already arrogated to himself the task of expulsion,' and was actually driving people out of the congregation (as he had refused to welcome the brothers) rather than merely desiring to do so . . ."¹⁷

Obviously Gaius did not bow to his wishes showing that he had strength of character and probably influence in the church. With this epistle John threw his support behind Gaius and against Diotrephes.

v. 11 John's encouragement doubtless strengthened Gaius' resolve to resist Diotrephes. "Of God" and "seen God" are terms John used in his first epistle (cf. 1 John 3:6, 10; 4:1-4, 6-7). God's children do good works because God is their Father and they share His nature (1 John 3:9). The person who does evil may be a Christian, but he is behaving like Satan when he does evil. John was not accusing Diotrephes of being unsaved but of behaving as if he were unsaved. One who knows God intimately (abides in Him) does not do evil (1 John 3:6).

"The expression he is of God' in this context does not mean he is a Christian.' Rather, it means, he is a godly person, or he is a man of God.' In this context it is a fellowship expression."¹⁸

Constable: Jud 1:5-16

III. WARNINGS AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS vv. 5-16

"The brief epistle of Jude is without parallel in the New Testament for its vehement denunciation of libertines and apostates."²⁸

College: Jude

JUDE

I. ADDRESS AND GREETING (1-2)

¹ Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by ^a Jesus Christ: ² Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

^a 1 Or for ; or in

v. 1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ

Like most ancient letters, this one begins by identifying its author and recipients. The author's name in Greek is Judas, but it is traditionally translated Jude in English versions (perhaps to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot). The author is probably Jude, the brother of Jesus (see Introduction), but he calls himself a servant (dou'lo" , doulos , also translated "slave") of Jesus Christ. He does not claim authority to write because he is the earthly brother of the Lord, but because, like others (Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, James 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1), he is the slave of the Messiah.

and a brother of James,

He distinguishes himself from others named Judas by calling himself the brother of James. This is an unusual designation, since most Jews would use "son of" ( bar ) to describe themselves. This greeting shows how famous James, the brother of the Lord, was in the early church (see the section on the brothers of Jesus in the Introduction to James).

To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:

Jude does not address his readers by name or location. It may be that his letter originally had such an address that was lost in copying. Some think Jude intended this to be a circular letter to be read in several churches since no specific destination is given. Thus, Jude has been called a "general" or "catholic" (that is, universal) epistle. However, the warmth of Jude's language toward his readers points to a personal knowledge of their particular situation. It is likely, then, that he writes to a specific congregation, not to a group of churches.

Jude does not greet his readers by name, but he does describe them in three ways: "called," "loved by God," and "kept by Jesus Christ." God's calling of his people is a rich concept in the Old Testament (Isaiah 41:9; 42:6; 48:12,15; 49:1; 54:6; Hosea 11:1) and the New Testament (Matthew 22:14; Romans 1:6-7; 8:28; 1 Corinthians 1:2,24,26; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; 1 Peter 1:15; 2 Peter 1:3, Revelation 17:14). "Called" (klhtov" , klçtos ) means they have received God's gracious election through Jesus and are to live faithfully in light of that calling.

Jude also says they are loved (ajgapavw , agapaô ) by God. Some accuse Jude of being exclusively concerned with false teaching. In fact, his main concern is to keep his readers in God's love (see Jude 21). Those loved by God are kept (threvw , tçreô ) by (or for) Jesus Christ. This may mean they are protected by Jesus from evil, including the evil of false teachers (John 17:12). More likely, they are protected for Jesus; that is, they are kept safe for him to receive at his Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Timothy 1:12; 1 Peter 1:4-5; Revelation 3:10). The implication is that not all who are called stay with Jesus or are kept for him. Those kept for Jesus are contrasted with the angels who did not keep their place and so have been kept in darkness (Jude 6).

v. 2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

Jude greets his readers with the words mercy, peace, and love. Early Christians took the typical Greek greeting (caivrein , chairein , "greeting") and the typical Hebrew greeting (mwlv , shalom , "peace") and gave them deeper meaning. Paul usually greets his readers with "grace" (cavri" , charis ) and "peace" (eijrhvnh , eirçnç ), expressing his wish and prayer that God grant them those spiritual blessings.

Jude does not use "grace and peace," but "mercy and peace," a typical Jewish greeting. It is interesting that "mercy" (e[leo" , eleos ) also appears in the greetings in 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; and 2 John 3, all books that warn of false teachers, just as Jude does. Mercy is especially needed in the face of danger from false teachers. Jude is the only New Testament writer to add "love" (ajgavph , agapç ) to his greeting, again emphasizing the importance of love in this short letter (see vv. 3, 12, 17, 21).

II. REASON FOR WRITING (3-4)

³ Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. ⁴ For certain men whose condemnation was written about ^a long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

^a 4 Or men who were marked out for condemnation

v. 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share,

Jude continues with this theme of love by calling his readers "beloved" (a better translation of ajgaphtoiv , agapçtoi , than "dear friends"). He gives a glimpse of the letter he intended or perhaps even started to write. It would have been a general essay on "the salvation we share" (cf. Titus 1:4, "our common faith"). This may mean the salvation Jude and his readers had in common or may refer to the common salvation of Jews and Gentiles. In either case, Jude abandons his intended letter because he felt compelled by the presence of false teachers among those he loved to write a quite different kind of letter, an appeal to contend for the once-for-all faith.

I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith

The word "contend" (ejpagwnivzomai , epagônizomai ) originally had a military or sporting setting; one fought for victory on the battlefield or in the arena. Here it reminds one of the strenuous effort that must be made on behalf of the faith. Christians also are in a battle (Ephesians 6:10-13; 1 Thessalonians 5:8; 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 2:4, 4:7) or a competition (1 Corinthians 9:24-25; 2 Timothy 2:5) against evil. Jude will later remind his readers that one fights for the faith not only by opposing false teachers but by prayer, mercy, and love (Jude 17-23). In the name of tolerance, contemporary leaders are prone to ignore all questionable teaching in the church. Jude says defending the faith and warning against false teaching can be a sign of love for our brothers and sisters.

Faith here refers to what is believed, not the act of believing. Some scholars think this objective use of faith proves that Jude was written after the time of the apostles, a time when Christian orthodoxy in doctrine became more fixed. However, other passages in the New Testament speak of faith as a set of doctrines that are believed (Romans 10:8; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 1:23, 3:23-25; Philippians 1:25; 1 Timothy 3:9, 4:1,6), so Jude's use of faith does not argue for a late date for the letter.

that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

This message that they believed had been entrusted to them once for all. "Entrusted" or "passed on" (paradivdwmi , paradidômi ) is similar to the word for tradition. This is an appeal to the past. They had received this message of salvation, the faith, from others; now they must fight to preserve it (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23: 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Timothy 6:20-21). This message of faith was normative. It was not to be changed. Like Jesus' sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:2, 10; 1 Peter 3:18), it was once for all. Unlike the false teachers, Jude does not believe in a progressive development of Christian doctrine.

True faith had been passed on once for all "to the saints." In the early church, every Christian was a saint (Acts 9:13, 32, 41; Romans 8:27; 12:13; 15:25, 26, 31; Hebrews 6:10; Revelation 5:8). "Saints" (a]gioi , hagioi ) literally means "holy ones." Christians are called to be devoted to God and live holy lives. This contrasts with the false teachers who deny Christ by their ungodliness.

v. 4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

Jude feels compelled to urge the saints to fight for the faith because false teachers had slipped in among them. Like Paul (Galatians 1:7, 2:4; 2 Corinthians 10:10-12), Jude will not dignify these opponents of the faith by calling them by name; instead, he uses "certain men" or "these men" (Jude 8, 10,12,16,19). These men intended to deceive the church since they "secretly slipped in among you" (cf. John 10:1; Galatians 2:4; 2 Timothy 3:6). This may imply they were traveling missionaries who had come as strangers to the church and then lived off its generosity. If so, they are similar to the deceivers warned of in 2 John 10-11: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work."

Although the church may be caught off guard by these false teachers, they can't slip in past the God who knew of them and foretold their condemnation. That condemnation was "written about long ago," perhaps referring to Old Testament warnings against false prophets as well as to warnings from Jesus and the apostles. It probably also refers to the prophecy against false teachers from the Book of Enoch (see Introduction and commentary on Jude 14-15).

They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality

These false teachers are "ungodly" (ajsebhv" , asebçs , a word used six times in different forms in Jude). This implies moral as well as doctrinal fault. False teaching is not merely intellectual but has ethical implications. Specifically, these teachers change grace into a license for immorality (ajsevlgeia , aselgeia ). Not all change is good. This one is a perversion of the meaning of grace. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are warned against immorality (Romans 13:13-14; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2, 7, 18; Revelation 2:20-24). The false teachers in Jude not only ignore that warning, they even believe they have the right to be immoral. To Paul's question, "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" (Romans 6:1), these men would answer with a resounding, "Yes!"

and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

This misunderstanding of grace as permission to sin leads them to "deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." This denial was probably not verbal (if they had said "Jesus is not Lord," they could not have slipped into the church) but actual: "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him" (Titus 1:16). These false teachers wanted salvation without following the Savior who as Sovereign and Lord demands that we die to sin as we follow him.

III. THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNGODLY (5-19)

A. THREE BIBLICAL EXAMPLES OF UNGODLINESS (5-7)

⁵ Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord ^a delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. ⁶ And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. ⁷ In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

^a 5 Some early manuscripts Jesus

Jude begins his look at Old Testament examples by saying he wants to remind his readers of what they already know. This may mean they know the errors of the false teachers. More likely it indicates they know their Bibles, that is, they are familiar with the examples he is about to cite. Much of the teaching of the early church, as well as of the current church, is not brand-new but is a reminder to Christians of what they already know or, at least, should know. The only "new truths" come from false teachers (cf. Galatians 1:9; 1 John 2:19-28). Those new teachings lead to a new morality, or rather to an old immorality.

v. 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Looking at each of the three examples of apostasy Jude gives will show what they have in common. His first example is Israel who was led by the Lord out of Egypt but refused to enter the promised land and so was punished. This is the story of the twelve spies, ten of whom were afraid of the inhabitants of the land while two, Caleb and Joshua, called for faith in God to give them victory. Most of the Israelites follow the ten, rebel against the Lord, and are punished for their unfaithfulness (Numbers 13:25-14:38). God destroys the very people he had rescued. It is the people of God, not outsiders, who are punished. No wonder this story is used elsewhere in the New Testament to warn Christians against apostasy (1 Corinthians 10:1-13; Hebrews 3:7-4:13).

v. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home -

The second example is the fall of the angels. Although some associate the fall of the morning star (Isaiah 14:11-17) and the king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:11-19) with the fallen angels, those passages more likely refer to the destruction of human rulers. Some understand the sons of God marrying the daughters of men (Genesis 6:2) to refer to angels falling by marrying humans (see the discussion below). Most likely Jude is referring to the account of the fall of the angels in the Book of Enoch (see the Introduction to Jude for a discussion of his use of Enoch).

these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Although the Bible does not give details of the fall, it is clear the angels abandoned their proper positions and so deserve punishment (2 Peter 2:4). "Kept" (threvw , tçreô ) in darkness may be a play on words. This is the same word Jude used to greet his readers in v. 2, "kept by Jesus Christ." Jesus keeps everyone in one of two ways, either in his loving care or in darkness for judgment. The chaining of the fallen angels does not contradict other New Testament passages that describe the devil and his angels as active in the world (Luke 22:31; Romans 8:38; Ephesians 6:12; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 20:1-3), but rather it points to the certainty of their punishment on "the great Day" of judgment.

v. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The third example, Sodom and Gomorrah, is introduced by "in the same way" (wJ" , hôs ) tying it closely to the angel example. Genesis 18-19 tells how God rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns of Admah and Zeboiim (cf. Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8) but saved Lot and his daughters. God destroyed the cities because of their great sin, referring to their homosexual practices (Genesis 19:5) and to their arrogant oppression of the poor (see Ezekiel 16:48-50). The "eternal fire" they suffer points to the lasting effects of their destruction and warns of the eternal fire of hell for those who follow their example (see v. 23).

What do these three examples have in common? In all three, evildoers are punished. The unbelieving in Israel are destroyed during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness, the fallen angels are bound in darkness for the judgment day, and Sodom and Gomorrah face eternal fire. So too the false teachers in Jude will receive their due punishment.

Some have tried to find a common sexual sin in all three examples. This is unlikely in the case of Israel, unless Jude's reference to "those who did not believe" includes their sin of "revelry" (sexual immorality) at Sinai (Exodus 32:6). If Jude thinks the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 are angels, then they commit sexual sin with the daughters of men. This forms a close parallel with Sodom where men desire to have sexual relations with angels (who are in the form of men, Genesis 19:1).

Although Jude may have chosen these three as examples of sexual sin, it is more likely he chose them because they speak of intentionally leaving God to follow another way of life. Israel is saved from Egypt "once for all" (v. 5, a{pax , hapax, a Greek word inexplicably left untranslated by the NIV), just as Jude's readers were entrusted with the faith "once for all" (same Greek word, v. 3). However, those Israelites who did not remain faithful were destroyed, just as Jude's readers will be if they do not fight to preserve their faith. The evil angels also abandoned their proper place and home. Sodom and Gomorrah literally "went after strange flesh," that is, they left their natural sexual desires.

These three are all examples of willful apostasy. All intentionally left their saved status to pursue an ungodly way of life. Their punishment is described in increasingly severe terms. The unbelieving Israelites are destroyed, the apostate angels are bound with everlasting chains, and Sodom and Gomorrah suffer eternal fire.

B. APPLICATION OF EXAMPLES TO

JUDE'S OPPONENTS (8-10)

⁸ In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. ⁹ But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" ¹⁰ Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals - these are the very things that destroy them.

v. 8 In the very same way,

"In the same way" (oJmoivw" , homoiôs ) compares the men troubling Jude's readers with the Old Testament apostates of Israel, the angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah. By making this comparison between such notorious sinners and the false teachers, "Jude intends to neutralize all possible sympathetic feelings toward them."

these dreamers pollute their own bodies,

Jude calls these men "dreamers," possibly meaning they indulge in erotic fantasies and so "pollute their own bodies." More likely, this means they claim divine approval through dreams for their beliefs and practices. God did give revelations through dreams (Genesis 40:5-19; Judges 7:13; Matthew 1:20; 2:12-13; Acts 2:17 quoting Joel 2:28); however, the Israelites were warned against prophets and dreamers who would lead them into rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; Jeremiah 27:9).

reject authority and slander celestial beings.

Like Sodom and Gomorrah, these false teachers are not only sexually immoral ("pollute their bodies"), but they also show disrespect for angels and thus for God. The "authority" (kuriovth" , kyriotçs ) they reject is elsewhere translated "powers" (Colossians 1:16) or "dominion" (Ephesians 1:21), referring to heavenly beings or angels. They speak evil of "celestial beings" (dovxa" , doxas , literally, "glories" or "glorious ones"), that is, of the angels in glory around God's throne.

This may mean they taught directly against angels but more likely means they rejected God's moral law that included prohibitions against sexual immorality, the "message spoken by angels" (Hebrews 2:2). False teaching always leads to immoral practice. They misunderstand grace by rejecting all law (that was brought by angels) and so turn grace into a license for immorality (v. 4). By so doing they, like Israel, the fallen angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah, reject the Lord and leave their proper place.

v. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses,

Their audacity is contrasted with the reticence of Michael the archangel, who did not take it upon himself to slander even Satan but relied on God's judgment. The story of Michael disputing with Satan over the body of Moses is not found in the Old Testament (for Moses' death, see Deuteronomy 34:6). Instead, according to early Christian writers Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215), Origen (A.D. 185-254), and Didymus (A.D. 313-398), Jude found the story in The Assumption of Moses , a book written early in the first century that today exists only in fragmentary form (see the Introduction for a discussion of Jude's use of non-biblical books).

did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Both Testaments (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; Revelation 12:7-9) and Jewish intertestamental literature describe Michael as the great warrior archangel. If anyone had the right to rebuke the fallen angel Satan, it was Michael. But he knows God alone is Lord of the angels, so he says, "The Lord rebuke you!" (cf. Zechariah 3:2).

v. 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals - these are the very things that destroy them.

In contrast to Michael who has respect even for Satan's status as an angel, the false teachers slander what they don't understand. Through their dreams they claim greater understanding than others. However, they are not spiritually superior to other humans (as they claim) but are inferior in understanding. Since they don't understand the heavenly realms (although they claim to through their dreams), they have become merely animal in nature and so will be destroyed.

C. THREE FURTHER BIBLICAL EXAMPLES

OF UNGODLINESS (11)

¹¹ Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

v. 11 Woe to them!

Frequently judgment is pronounced upon wrongdoers by "woe to you." These woe pronouncements occur most often in the Old Testament prophets and on the lips of Jesus (Matthew 11:21; 23:13-32; Luke 11:42-52).

They have taken the way of Cain;

Cain is a clear example of jealousy and murder (Genesis 4:1-16; 1 John 3:12) but may seem an unlikely warning against false teaching. However, there is a strong rabbinical tradition, also found in the Jewish writer Philo (20 B.C.-A.D. 50), that portrays Cain as the first heretic. His way is that of selfishness and sensuality. If this tradition is not in Jude's mind, perhaps the comparison is that the false teachers are harming their brothers by their doctrines as Cain harmed his brother Abel. Heresy is always more than being sincerely mistaken about a doctrine. As with Cain, it is direct disobedience to God and has harmful consequences for others.

they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error;

There are two Balaam stories in the Old Testament. In the first (Numbers 22-24), he is hired by Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel. However, Balaam refuses to curse and blesses them instead. In the second story, Balaam leads Israel into sexual immorality and idolatry (Numbers 25:1-3; 31:16). The parallels with these false teachers are many. Like Balaam, they claim to be prophets ("dreamers" v. 8), lead others into sexual immorality (vv. 4, 8), and commit idolatry by denying Jesus Christ (v. 4). They are not slow in imitating Balaam's greed; rather, they rush into (the Greek word ejkcevw , ekcheô , is used for a flooding stream) his error.

they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

They also rebel against authority as Korah and his companions rebelled against Moses and the Lord. Promoting self by resisting authority is characteristic of false teachers (cf. Titus 1:10-11; 2 Timothy 3:1-9; 3 John 9-10). Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were swallowed by the earth (Numbers 16:32); their followers were destroyed by fire from the Lord (Numbers 16:35). So too, the false teachers of Jude refuse to keep their proper place (like the fallen angels, v. 6), rebel against angels (v. 8) and Jesus (v. 4), and face fiery punishment (v. 7).

All three, Cain, Balaam, and Korah, are examples of rebellion against God's authority. All three destroyed others by their teachings and actions. All three were punished by God. The false teachers in Jude face the same fate.

D. METAPHORS FROM NATURE APPLIED

TO THE UNGODLY (12-13)

¹² These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm - shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted - twice dead. ¹³ They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

v. 12 These men are blemishes at your love feasts,

Jude mines heaven and earth to find six metaphorical examples of the behavior of the false teachers. First, he says they are "blemishes at your love feasts." This is the only place the word "love feast" (ajgavph , agapç , the plural form here is literally "loves,") is used in the New Testament, although the practice is described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. It is likely that in the first century the Lord's Supper was part of a larger meal, the love feast, where fellowship was expressed, and the poor were fed. Beginning in the second century, the love feast and the Lord's Supper became separated.

The false teachers are "blemishes" or "reefs" (spivla" , s pilas , can have either meaning) at the love feasts. If "blemishes" or "spots" is the correct translation (cf. 2 Peter 2:13), then they are like cancers on the body of Christ. However, in keeping with the nature metaphors that follow, "reefs" is a better translation. The false teachers are like dangerous coral reefs that cause others to shipwreck their faith (cf. 1 Timothy 1:19).

eating with you without the slightest qualm - shepherds who feed only themselves.

The irony is clear with either translation. The love feast is to express fellowship with Christ and fellow Christians; these men abuse it by feeding only themselves and eating without reverence for the body of Christ (ajfovbw" , aphobôs , "without the slightest qualm," cf. 1 Corinthians 11:29). "Feeding themselves" (literally "shepherding themselves") is a second metaphor, recalling biblical warnings against selfish leaders among God's people (Ezekiel 34:1-10; Isaiah 56:11; John 10:12-13). This language implies the false teachers were fleecing the flock of God by prophesying for profit as Balaam did (v. 11).

They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind;

Not only are they reefs and evil shepherds, they also are "clouds without rain" (cf. Proverbs 25:14). In a dry climate it is particularly disappointing to expect rain and receive none. So too these false teachers promise much but deliver nothing. "Blown by the wind" indicates their instability (cf. Ephesians 4:14).

autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted - twice dead.

The barrenness of their promises is shown by the fourth metaphor that they are fruitless trees. The figure of fruit for obedience is common in the Bible (cf. Psalm 1:3; John 15:1-6). The Greek word (fqinopwrinov" , phthinopôrinos ) translated "autumn" is actually "late autumn." Harvest is past, and it is too late for them to produce fruit. "Twice dead" may be a reference to the second death as punishment for the false teachers (cf. Revelation 2:11; 20:6; 21:8). "Uprooted" indicates their separation from the community of the faithful and is also a symbol of punishment (cf. Psalm 52:5; Proverbs 2:22; Jeremiah 1:10; Matthew 3:10; 7:19; 15:13; Luke 13:6-9).

v. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame;

A fifth metaphor says as waves throw debris up on the seashore, so these men spew forth their shame (cf. Isaiah 57:20). To Israel, the sea was always a symbol of danger and chaos (Psalm 107:23-28; Ezekiel 28:8; Revelation 21:1). Here it is the moral chaos of the false teachers that is the danger.

wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Finally, they are "wandering stars," perhaps meteors or comets but more likely planets that the ancients thought had irregular courses. Like meteors, the false teachers flash brilliantly for a short time, but they give no lasting light. As the planets wander across the sky, so these men wander from the truth ("wander" [planhvth" , plançtçs ] is from the same root as "error" in v. 11). "Blackest darkness" reminds one of Jesus' warning of "outer darkness" (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30).

Taken together, these six metaphors focus on the selfishness ("feeding themselves"), instability ("blown by wind," "wild waves," "wandering stars"), and barrenness ("without rain," "fruitless") of the false teachers. They particularly emphasize the finality of their punishment ("uprooted," "twice dead," "blackest darkness"). Although there are Old Testament parallels, the last four metaphors - clouds, trees, waves, stars - are probably drawn from The Book of Enoch , which Jude will quote directly in the next section.

E. ENOCH'S PROPHECY AGAINST

THE UNGODLY (14-16)

¹⁴ Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones ¹⁵ to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." ¹⁶ These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

v. 14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:

Jude supports his case against the false teachers by quoting from 1 Enoch 1:9 (see the discussion of his use of pseudepigraphical writings in the Introduction), which reads:

Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him.

"See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

Jude adapts the quotation to his circumstances by identifying the one to come with the Lord (that is, Jesus) who will come to judge the ungodly (that is, the false teachers). He comes with an uncountable host (literally myriads) of holy ones, perhaps glorified saints but more likely angels (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2-3; Daniel 7:10; Zechariah 14:5; Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; also see the comments on James 5:4). Their holiness contrasts with the ungodliness of the false teachers. The picture here is of a conquering Lord leading his angelic army against the forces of evil.

v. 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

He comes to judge the ungodly (a word used four times in different forms in this single verse). Ungodly (ajsebhv" , asebçs ) implies both moral fault and rejection of God (that is, of Jesus, v. 4). The ungodly will be judged for their acts and harsh words against the Lord Jesus and his angels ("slander celestial beings," v. 8).

v. 16 These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

Jude further applies the quotation to his opponents by describing them as grumblers (goggustaiv , gongystai ) and faultfinders (memyivmoiroi , mempsimoiroi ). Grumbling against God recalls the Israelites who murmured in the wilderness and were punished by God (v. 5; cf. Exodus 15:24; 16:2, 7-9, 12; Numbers 14:2,27,29,36; Deuteronomy 1:27; Psalm 106:25; 1 Corinthians 10:10) as well as those who rejected the teaching of Jesus (John 6:41). "Faultfinders" is better translated "complainers." Like the fallen angels (v. 6), the false teachers are discontented with the status God has given them, so they grumble and whine.

As an attempt to increase their status, they brag (literally, "speak big" (uJpevrogka , hyperonka ) about themselves and flatter those in power (literally, "admire faces," in other words, judge by appearance, cf. James 2:1-9). Not content to please the Lord Jesus, the all-powerful Lord of hosts, they fawn over those who appear influential but in truth have no permanent power.

F. THE WARNING OF THE APOSTLES (17-19)

¹⁷ But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. ¹⁸ They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." ¹⁹ These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

v. 17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.

The address "dear friends" (Greek, "beloved") is a transition, contrasting the false teachers with Jude's readers. Unlike the false teachers who flout authority, the beloved are to hold to the faith once delivered by remembering what they were taught by the apostles, whether personally, through others, or by apostolic writings. Just as the Old Testament (vv. 5-11) and Enoch (vv. 14-15) predicted the coming and fate of the false teachers, so also the apostles foretold their judgment (see Acts 20:29-31; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-9; 4:3; 1 John 2:18-19; 4:1-3). The apostles received this warning from Jesus himself (Mark 13:5-8, 21-23; Matthew 7:15).

v. 18 They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires."

The apostolic warning calls the false teachers "scoffers" or "mockers," a word (ejmpaivkth" , empaiktçs ) used often in the Old Testament to describe the ungodly (Psalms 1:1; 35:16; Proverbs 1:22; 9:7-8; 13:1; 14:6; 19:25-29). These teachers have scoffed at Christ (vv. 4, 15), at authority (v. 8), at angels (v. 8), and at anything they do not understand (v. 10). Rejecting proper authority, they are left with their own ungodly desires (see v. 16).

v. 19 These are the men who divide you,

These men divide the church, referring not to an actual schism (they still share the same love feasts as the rest of the church, v. 12) but to an attempt to lead others astray (as at Corinth, "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," etc. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17). They may have convinced others that they were more enlightened and spiritual than most Christians, and so they deserved to lead the church.

who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

But in his strongest language yet, Jude says they are natural and do not have the Spirit. Paul makes this same contrast between the natural man ("the man without the Spirit," NIV) and the spiritual man (1 Corinthians 2:10-15). James 3:15 speaks of a wisdom that is purely natural or "unspiritual" and so is earthly and of the devil. These false teachers follow their own natural inclinations, and although they may claim dreams and visions from God (v. 8), by their ungodly acts, they show they actually do not have the Spirit. This is the same as saying they have no salvation, since ". . . if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Romans 8:9b).

IV. A CALL TO FAITH, LOVE, AND MERCY (20-23)

²⁰ But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. ²¹ Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

²² Be merciful to those who doubt; ²³ snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear - hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

v. 20 But you, dear friends,

This paragraph begins with a contrast ("But you . . .") and continues to state and imply contrasts between the false teachers and the faithful Christians (the "dear friends," or literally in Greek, "the beloved ones" [ajgaphtoiv , agapçtoi ]). Along with these contrasts are several echoes of previous verses in Jude. Thus, these verses function as a summary.

build yourselves up in your most holy faith

The faithful are encouraged here by a series of four commands. First, they are "to build yourselves up on your most holy faith." The metaphor of the church as a building occurs throughout the New Testament (Matthew 16:18; Acts 20:32; 1 Corinthians 3:9-15; Colossians 2:6-7; and other passages). Here Christians as a group, not just individually, are to build themselves up on faith, that is, on the once-for-all beliefs that were entrusted to them (v. 3). That faith is holy in contrast to the ungodliness of the false teachers. The false teachers are trying to tear down and destroy the faith. The beloved are to build it up.

and pray in the Holy Spirit.

In contrast to the false teachers who do not have the Spirit (v. 19), the faithful are to "pray in the Holy Spirit." This does not necessarily imply charismatic prayer (as in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17), since the Spirit intercedes for Christians whenever they pray (Romans 8:15-16, 26-27; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 6:18). It is the Spirit who enables us to confess, "Jesus is Lord" (1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 4:2), but these false teachers deny Jesus (v. 2) and so cannot pray in the Spirit. Praying in the Spirit means confessing Christ and receiving help in prayer from his Holy Spirit.

v. 21 Keep yourselves in God's love

Thirdly, the faithful are urged to "keep yourselves in God's love." This does not mean "your love for God," but "his love for you." God's love for the Christian is unending, but it calls for effort to stay with the faith and so stay in his love (John 15:9; 1 John 4:16). Unlike the disobedient angels who abandoned their position with God (v. 6), and the false teachers who pervert God's grace and love (v. 4), the beloved ones must be content to remain in God's love where they belong.

as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Finally, Jude encourages them to "wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." Although he doesn't use the word, Jude here speaks of the sure hope of the Christian. The beloved have already received mercy (Jude even greets them with the word v. 2), but the mercy of Jesus Christ will be fully revealed at the last day when the saints receive eternal life (cf. 2 Timothy 1:18). Waiting for that day is not merely passive but calls for action - building, praying, and keeping.

In these four injunctions ("build," "pray," "keep," "wait") there are references to the three theological virtues - faith, love, and hope - and to the Trinity - Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus Christ.

v. 22 Be merciful to those who doubt;

The words of verses 22-23 occur in a variety of ways in different Greek manuscripts and English translations. In the NIV there are three classes of people mentioned, each increasingly caught up in the error of the false teachers.

Having strongly condemned the false teachers and their error, the question arises, "How then should we treat those who are tempted to follow their error?" Staying in God's love and waiting for the mercy of Christ motivates the faithful to show love and mercy to others. Some are not sure of what they believe or whom they should follow. Such doubters need mercy, not condemnation. Having mercy on doubters implies the faithful should correct them with gentleness.

v. 23 snatch others from the fire and save them;

Others are in greater danger from the false teachers. They stand on the brink of hellfire. They must be snatched (aJrpavzw , harpazô ) from the fire (cf. Zechariah 3:1-5; Amos 4:11) and saved before it is too late (cf. James 5:20). There is a strong sense of urgency here. The faithful cannot ignore those who are tempted to be immoral and to deny Jesus like the false teachers. If ignored, they will suffer the punishment of the ungodly (see vv. 6,7,13,15).

to others show mercy, mixed with fear - hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

Others are so influenced by the false teachers that it is as if their clothes were soiled by sin (Isaiah 4:4; Zechariah 3:3-4). Such sin can contaminate others, even those who try to show mercy. False teaching is contagious. Caution or fear is needed to insure that the faithful themselves are not led astray.

These verses clearly show the responsibility that faithful Christians have toward those who are confused about the faith or even living contrary to it. Contending for the faith does not call for treating others harshly. One cannot fight for the faith without having the attitude of the one in whom our faith rests, the one who came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). The faithful are to do all they can in a spirit of gentleness and mercy to restore others to faith, and yet they must be cautious or they too will fall prey to temptation (Galatians 6:1-2).

V. DOXOLOGY (24-25)

²⁴ To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy - ²⁵ to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Jude ends his letter with one of the most beautiful statements of praise in Scripture. This doxology (from dovxa , doxa , the Greek word for "glory") is similar to others in the New Testament (Romans 16:25-27; Ephesians 3:20-21; Philippians 4:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; Revelation 5:13) but has unique features that tie it to the rest of Jude.

v. 24 To him who is able to keep you from falling

Jude's praise is to the one "who is able to keep you from falling." The idea of sin as stumbling is found frequently in the Psalms (38:16; 56:13; 66:9; 73:2; 91:12; 116:8; 121:3) and in James (2:10; 3:2). Here stumbling is falling into the error of the false teachers and so suffering the fate of the fallen angels ( v. 6). Jude has warned strongly against the danger of being contaminated by false teaching. This warning might have tempted his readers to focus on their own weakness and despair of remaining faithful. Jude moves them to courage by ending his letter with praise for the loving, powerful God who sustains believers. Christians must contend for the faith (v. 3), but they rely on God's strength for the fight, not on their own. Defense ends in praise. As Jude began his letter by calling them "kept by Jesus Christ," so here, using a different Greek word (fulavssw , phylassô ), he ends by praising the God who keeps them.

and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy -

God will not only keep them from falling now, but he will ultimately allow them to enter his presence without fault and with great joy. Faultless (a[nwmo" , anômos ) may imply that they stand before God as unblemished "living sacrifices" (Romans 12:1), just as Old Testament sacrifices were to be without spot or blemish (Exodus 12:5; Leviticus 22:21; Malachi 1:13-14). More likely, it means they will stand morally blameless before God. Christians rejoice in his grace and power that alone can make them blameless (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

v. 25 to the only God our Savior

This God who is able to protect and save is the only God. This reflects the Shema , the great Jewish creed that proclaims that the Lord is one (Deuteronomy 6:4; see the comments on James 2:19). It is also a reminder that the false teachers have rejected Jesus as "our only sovereign and Lord" (v. 4), and by doing so have rejected the only God.

God is also "our Savior" (swthvr , sôtçr ), a title usually used for Jesus (but see Luke 1:47; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4). The term here likely has an Old Testament background, and so is equivalent to the phrase, "the God of our salvation" (Psalms 68:19; 88:1).

be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

God is praised with four terms. Glory (dovxa , doxa) is a rich word pointing to the bright presence of God that overshadowed Sinai (Exodus 24:16-17) and the temple (1 Kings 8:11). It also suggests the reputation and renown of God. Majesty (megalwsuvnh , megalôsynç ) connotes the transcendence of God. He is beyond human comprehension. Power (kravto" , kratos ) and authority (ejxousiva , exousia ) are synonymous. "Authority" may be Jude's final swipe at the false teachers who do not recognize God's rule.

The greatest way to fight false teachers is to praise the God they deny. All praise to God is through Jesus Christ our Lord. That praise stretches from eternity to eternity. To these words of praise, all believers say a heartfelt amen.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Jud 1:9

JUDE 9 —Isn’t the dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil based on an apocryphal story?

PROBLEM: Jude records an account in which Michael the archangel and the devil have a dispute over the body of Moses, saying, “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, `The Lord rebuke you!’ ” (v. 9 ) This account is not found in the OT and is also considered to be found in a pseudepigraphal book (false writing) titled The Assumption of Moses.

SOLUTION: Just because the account is not found in any OT passages of Scripture doesn’t mean that the event did not occur. The Bible often cites truths from books that are not inspired, but which contain, nevertheless, some true statements. A biblical author is not limited to citing only Scripture. All truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found.   

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Jude (Book Introduction)

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

ABOUT a.d. 65 TO 67

By Way of Introduction

The Author

He calls himself Judas, but this was a very common name. In the N.T. itself we have Judas Iscariot and Judas not Iscariot (Joh_14:22; also called Judas of James, son or brother, Luk_6:6), Judas a brother of our Lord (Mat_13:55), Judas of Galilee (Act_5:37), Judas of Damascus (Act_9:11), Judas Barsabbas (Act_15:22). The author explains that he is a " slave" of Jesus Christ as James did (Jud_1:1), and adds that he is also a brother of James. Clement of Alexandria thinks that, like James, he deprecated being called the brother of the Lord Jesus (as by Hegesippus later) as claiming too much authority. Keil identifies him with Jude the Apostle (not Iscariot), but that is most unlikely. The Epistle is one of the disputed books of Eusebius. It was recognized in the canon in the Third Council of Carthage (a.d. 397). It appears in the Muratorian Canon (a.d. 170).

The Relation to 2 Peter

Beyond a doubt one of these Epistles was used by the other, as one can see by comparing particularly Jude 1:3-18 and 2 Peter 2:1-18. As already said concerning 2 Peter, scholars are greatly divided on this point, and in our present state of knowledge it does not seem possible to reach a solid conclusion. The probability is that not much time elapsed between them. Mayor devotes a whole chapter to the discussion of the relation between 2 Peter and Jude and reaches the conclusion " that in Jude we have the first thought, in Peter the second thought." That is my own feeling, but it is all so subjective that I have no desire to urge the point unduly. Bigg is equally positive that 2 Peter comes before Jude.

The Use of Apocryphal Books

Jude (verse Jud_1:14) quotes from " Enoch" by name and says that he " prophesied." What he quotes is a combination of various passages in the Book of Enoch as we have it now. It used to be held that part of Enoch was later than Jude, but Charles seems to have disproved that, though the book as we have it has many interpolations. Tertullian wanted to canonise Enoch because of what Jude says, whereas Chrysostom says that the authenticity of Jude was doubted because of the use of Enoch. In verse Jud_1:9 there seems to be an allusion to the Assumption of Moses , another apocryphal book, but it is the use of " prophesied" in verse Jud_1:14 about Enoch that gave most offence. It is possible, of course, that Jude did not attach the full sense to that term.

The Style

It is terse and picturesque, with a fondness for triplets. The use of the O.T. is very much like that in 2 Peter. Alford notes that it is impassioned invective with epithet on epithet, image on image. Bigg remarks on the stern and unbending nature of the author, with no pathos and a harsh view of things and with frequent use of Pauline phraseology. There are some fifteen words not in the rest of the N.T. The grammar is less irregular than that of 2 Peter. There is often a poetic ring in his words.

The Purpose

The author undoubtedly has the Gnostics in mind and is seeking to warn his readers against them, as is true of 2 Peter. This same purpose appears in the Johannine Epistles, as was true also of Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles.

The Readers

Of this we know nothing at all. Dr. Chase believes that the Epistle was sent to Antioch in Syria. That may be true, though it is mere conjecture. Any place or places in Asia Minor would suit so far as we know. The readers were probably both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Jerusalem and Alexandria are urged as the place of composition, but of that we have no real information.

The Date

This really turns on the genuineness of the Epistle. There is no clear indication of the date, for the Gnostics described can belong to the first or to the second century. If it was used by 2 Peter, that would place it slightly before that Epistle. The date suggested, 65 to 67 a.d., is purely conjectural.

JFB: Jude (Book Introduction)

AUTHOR.--He calls himself in the address "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." See Introduction to the Epistle of James, in proof of James the apostle, and James the Lord's brother, the bishop of Jerusalem, being one and the same person. Gal 1:19 alone seems to me to prove this. Similarly, Jude the brother of our Lord, and Jude the apostle, seem to be one and the same. JEROME [Against Helvidius], rightly maintains that by the Lord's brethren are meant his cousins, children of Mary and Cleophas (the same as Alphæus). From 1Co 9:5 (as "brethren of the Lord" stands between "other apostles" and "Cephas"), it seems natural to think that the brethren of the Lord are distinguished from the apostles only because all his brethren were not apostles, but only James and Jude. Jude's reason for calling himself "brother of Jesus," was that James, as bishop of Jerusalem, was better known than himself. Had he been, in the strict sense, brother of our Lord, he probably would have so entitled himself. His omission of mention of his apostleship is no proof that he was not an apostle; for so also James omits it in his heading; and Paul, in his Epistles to the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Philemon, omits it. Had the writer been a counterfeiter of the apostle Jude, he would doubtless have called himself an "apostle." He was called also Lebbæus and Thaddeus, probably to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot, the traitor. Lebbæus, from Hebrew "leeb," "heart," means courageous. Thaddeus is the same as Theudas, from Hebrew "thad," the "breast." Luke and John, writing later than Matthew, when there would be no confusion between him and Judas Iscariot, give his name Judas. The only circumstance relating to him recorded in the Gospels occurs in Joh 14:22, "Judas saith unto Him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that Thou wilt manifest Thyself unto us, and not unto the world?" JEROME [Commentary on Matthew] says that he was sent to Edessa, to Abgarus, king of Osroene, or Edessa, and that he preached in Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia, in which last country he suffered martyrdom. The story is told on EUSEBIUS' authority, that Abgarus, on his sickbed, having heard of Jesus' power to heal, sent to beg Him to come and cure him, to which the Lord replied, praising his faith, that though he had not seen the Saviour, he yet believed; adding, "As for what thou hast written, that I should come to thee, it is necessary that all those things for which I was sent should be fulfilled by Me in this place, and that having filled them I should be received up to Him that sent Me. When, therefore, I shall be received into heaven, I will send unto thee some one of My disciples who shall both heal thy distemper and give life to thee and those with thee." Thomas is accordingly said to have been inspired to send Thaddeus for the cure and baptism of Abgarus. The letters are said to have been shown Thaddeus among the archives of Edessa. It is possible such a message was verbally sent, and the substance of it registered in writing afterwards (compare 2Ki. 5:1-27; and Mat 15:22). HEGESIPPUS (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.20]) states that when Domitian inquired after David's posterity, some grandsons of Jude, called the Lord's brother, were brought into his presence. Being asked as to their possessions, they said that they had thirty-nine acres of the value of nine thousand denarii, out of which they paid him taxes, and lived by the labor of their hands, a proof of which they gave by showing the hardness of their hands. Being interrogated as to Christ and His kingdom, they replied that it was not of this world, but heavenly; and that it would be manifested at the end of the world, when He would come in glory to judge the living and the dead.

AUTHENTICITY.--EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.25], reckons it among the Antilegomena or controverted Scriptures, "though recognized by the majority." The reference to the contest of Michael, the archangel, with the devil, for the body of Moses, not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament, but found in the apocryphal "Book of Enoch," probably raised doubts as to its authenticity, as JEROME [On Illustrious Men, 4] says. Moreover, its not being addressed to one particular Church, or individual, caused it not to be so immediately recognized as canonical. A counterfeiter would have avoided using what did not occur in the Old Testament, and which might be regarded as apocryphal.

As to the book of Enoch, if quoted by Jude, his quotation of a passage from it gives an inspired sanction only to the truth of that passage, not to the whole book; just as Paul, by inspiration, sanctions particular sentiments from ARATUS, EPIMENIDES, and MENANDER, but not all their writings. I think, rather as there is some slight variation between Jude's statement and that of the book of Enoch, that Jude, though probably not ignorant of the book of Enoch, stamps with inspired sanction the current tradition of the Jews as to Enoch's prophecies; just as Paul mentions the names of the Egyptian magicians, "Jannes and Jambres" (2Ti 3:8), not mentioned in the Old Testament. At all events, the prophecy ascribed to Enoch by Jude was really his, being sanctioned as such by this inspired writer. So also the narration as to the archangel Michael's dispute with Satan concerning the body of Moses, is by Jude's inspired authority (Jud 1:9) declared true. The book of Enoch is quoted by JUSTIN MARTYR, IRENÆUS, CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, &c. Bruce, the Abyssinian traveller, brought home three copies of it in Ethiopic, from Alexandria, of which Archbishop Lawrence, in 1821, gave an English translation. The Ethiopic was a version from the Greek, and the Greek doubtless a version from the Hebrew, as the names of the angels in it show. The Apostolic Constitutions, ORIGEN [Against Celsus], JEROME, and AUGUSTINE, pronounce it not canonical. Yet it is in the main edifying, vindicating God's government of the world, natural and spiritual, and contradicting none of the Scripture statements. The name Jesus never occurs, though "Son of man," so often given to Messiah in the Gospels, is frequent, and terms are used expressive of His dignity, character, and acts, exceeding the views of Messiah in any other Jewish book. The writer seems to have been a Jew who had become thoroughly imbued with the sacred writings of Daniel. And, though many coincidences occur between its sentiments and the New Testament, the Messianic portions are not distinct enough to prove that the writer knew the New Testament. Rather, he seems to have immediately preceded Christ's coming, about the time of Herod the Great, and so gives us a most interesting view of believing Jews' opinions before the advent of our Lord. The Trinity is recognized (Enoch 60:13,14). Messiah is "the elect One" existing from eternity (Enoch 48:2,3,5); "All kings shall fall down before Him, and worship and fix their hopes on this Son of man" (Enoch 61:10-13). He is the object of worship (Enoch 48:3,4); He is the supreme Judge (Enoch 60:10,11; 68:38,39). There shall be a future state of retribution (Enoch 93:8,9; 94:2,4; 95; 96; 99; 103); The eternity of future punishment (Enoch 103:5). VOLKMAR, in ALFORD, thinks the book was written at the time of the sedition of Barchochebas (A.D. 132), by a follower of Rabbi Akiba, the upholder of that impostor. This would make the book Antichristian in its origin. If this date be correct, doubtless it copied some things from Jude, giving them the Jewish, not the Christian, coloring.

EUSEBIUS [Demonstration of the Gospel, 3.5] remarks, it accords with John's humility that in Second and Third John he calls himself "the elder." For the same reason James and Jude call themselves "servants of Jesus Christ." CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Adumbrations, in Epistle of Jude, p. 1007] says, "Jude, through reverential awe, did not call himself brother, but servant, of Jesus Christ, and brother of James."

TERTULLIAN [On the Apparel of Women, 3] cites the Epistle as that of the apostle James. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA in Miscellanies [3.2.11] quotes Jud 1:8, Jud 1:17 as Scripture, in The Instructor [3.8.44], Jud 1:5. The MURATORI fragment asserts its canonicity [ROUTH, Sacred Fragments, 1.306]. ORIGEN [Commentary on Matthew 13:55] says, "Jude wrote an Epistle of few lines, but one filled full of the strong words of heavenly grace." Also, in his Commentary on Matthew 22:23, ORIGEN quotes Jud 1:6; and on Matthew 18:10, he quotes Jud 1:1. He calls the writer "Jude the apostle," in the Latin remains of his works (compare DAVIDSON, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 3, p. 498). JEROME [On Illustrious Men, 4] reckons it among the Scriptures. Though the oldest manuscripts of the Peschito omit it, EPHREM THE SYRIAN recognizes it. WORDSWORTH reasons for its genuineness thus: Jude, we know, died before John, that is, before the beginning of the second century. Now EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.32] tells us that James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon his brother; and also that Symeon sat in that see till A.D. 107, when as a martyr he was crucified in his hundred twentieth year. We find that the Epistle to Jude was known in the East and West in the second century; it was therefore circulated in Symeon's lifetime. It never would have received currency such as it had, nor would Symeon have permitted a letter bearing the name of an apostle, his own brother Jude, brother of his own apostolical predecessor, James, to have been circulated, if it were not really Jude's.

TO WHOM ADDRESSED.--The references to Old Testament history, Jud 1:5, Jud 1:7, and to Jewish tradition, Jud 1:14, &c., make it likely that Jewish Christians are the readers to whom Jude mainly (though including also all Christians, Jud 1:1) writes, just as the kindred Epistle, Second Peter, is addressed primarily to the same class; compare Introduction to First Peter and Introduction to Second Peter. The persons stigmatized in it were not merely libertines (as ALFORD thinks), though no doubt that was one of their prominent characteristics, but heretics in doctrine, "denying the only Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Hence he urges believers "earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jud 1:3). Insubordination, self-seeking, and licentiousness, the fruit of Antinomian teachings, were the evils against which Jude warns his readers; reminding them that, to build themselves in their most holy faith, and to pray in the Holy Ghost, are the only effectual safeguards. The same evils, along with mocking skepticism, shall characterize the last days before the final judgment, even as in the days when Enoch warned the ungodly of the coming flood. As Peter was in Babylon in writing 1Pe 5:13, and probably also in writing Second Peter (compare Introduction to First Peter and Introduction to Second Peter), Jude addressed his Epistle primarily to the Jewish Christians in and about Mesopotamian Babylon (a place of great resort to the Jews in that day), or else to the Christian Jews dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1Pe 1:1), the persons addressed by Peter. For Jude is expressly said to have preached in Mesopotamia [JEROME, Commentary on Matthew], and his Epistle, consisting of only twenty-five verses, contains in them no less than eleven passages from Second Peter (see my Introduction to Second Peter for the list). Probably in Jud 1:4 he witnesses to the fulfilment of Peter's prophecy, "There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained (rather as Greek, "forewritten," that is, announced beforehand by the apostle Peter's written prophecy) to this condemnation, ungodly men denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Compare 2Pe 2:1, "There shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." Also Jud 1:17-18 plainly refers to the very words of 2Pe 3:3, "Remember the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus; how they told you there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." This proves, in opposition to ALFORD, that Jude's Epistle is later than Peter's (whose inspiration he thus confirms, just as Peter confirms Paul's, 2Pe 3:15-16), not vice versa.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.--ALFORD thinks, that, considering Jude was writing to Jews and citing signal instances of divine vengeance, it is very unlikely he would have omitted to allude to the destruction of Jerusalem if he had written after that event which uprooted the Jewish polity and people. He conjectures from the tone and references that the writer lived in Palestine. But as to the former, negative evidence is doubtful; for neither does John allude in his Epistles, written after the destruction of Jerusalem, to that event. MILL fixes on A.D. 90, after the death of all the apostles save John. I incline to think from Jud 1:17-18 that some time had elapsed since the Second Epistle of Peter (written probably about A.D. 68 or 69) when Jude wrote, and, therefore, that the Epistle of Jude was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.

TSK: Jude (Book Introduction)

St. Jude, says Origen, has written an Epistle in a few lines indeed, but full of vigorous expressions of heavenly grace - Ιουδας [Strong’s 2455], μεν [Strong’s 3303], εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν [Strong’s 3303], πεπληρωμενην δε [Strong’s 1161], ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων .

He briefly and forcibly represents the detestable doctrines and practices of certain false teachers, generally supposed to be the impure Gnostics, Nicolaitans and followers of Simon Magus; and reproves these profligate perverters of sound principles, and patrons of lewdness, with a holy indignation and just severity; while at the same time he exhorts all sound Christians, with genuine apostolic charity, to have tender compassion on these deluded wretches, and to endeavour vigorously to reclaim them from the ways of hell, and pluck them as brands out of the fire. There is a great similarity in sentiment and style between this Epistle and the second chapter of the second Epistle of Peter. Both writers are nearly alike in vehemence and holy indignation against impudence and lewdness, and against those who insidiously undermine chastity, purity, and sound principles.

TSK: Jude 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Jud 1:1, He exhorts them to be constant in the profession of the faith; Jud 1:4, False teachers are crept in to seduce them, for whose evil doctrine and manners horrible punishment is prepared; Jud 1:20, whereas the godly, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and prayers to God, may persevere, and grow in grace, and keep themselves, and recover others out of the snares of those deceivers.

Poole: Jude 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

Some question there hath been concerning the penman of this Epistle, and some have thought that Jude the apostle was not the man, whoever were;

1. Because he doth not give himself the title of apostle: but that is objected against James too, and hath been already answered.

2. Because the writer of this Epistle speaks of himself as coming after the apostles, Jud 1:17 . But what necessity is there for his coming behind them in office and authority, because he doth in time?

3. Because he mentions the contention about the body of Moses, and the prophecy of Enoch, which are no where to be found in Scripture. But when there were divers traditions among the Jews, (whereof this about Moses’ s body seems to be one), why might not the Holy Ghost assert some that were true (though before doubtful) by this apostle, and make them certain, as well as he doth by Paul the names of Jannes and Jambres, 2Ti 3:8 , which were known only by tradition; and Moses’ s quaking and fearing at Mount Sinai, Heb 12:21 , whereof no mention had been made in the Scripture? As for the prophecy of Enoch, it seems to have been a tradition too, (for he mentions no writing), and then the same may be said as to the other. Yet if it were a book, and an apocryphal one too, his citing of it doth not make it to be canonical; for Jude might as well cite a passage out of an apocryphal writer, as Paul doth several out of heathen authors, Act 17:28 1Co 15:33 Tit 1:12 . And:

4. Because much of this Epistle seems to be transcribed out of 2Pe 2:1-22 , and therefore not to be dictated by the Spirit. But to this it may be said, that though many passages in this Epistle agree with what Peter speaks, yet there is so much difference in the whole, that it is plain they are not transcribed thence. And yet why might not the Spirit dictate the same truths to several penmen, either to be published to several persons, or the same persons at different times? Most of Obadiah’ s prophecy is to be found in Jeremiah’ s; Psa 60:1-12 is in a great part the same with Psa 108:1-13 , and Psa 14:1-7 the same with Psa 53:1-6 ; and Paul by the same Spirit wrote many of the same things to the Ephesians, and to the Colossians. And what is alleged of the ancients questioning the authority of this Epistle, it is not so considerable, as it might be alleged, even out of them, for the confirmation of it.

Sure we may say, the spirit of an apostle breathes in this as well as in others; the same majesty, purity, and efficacy appear in it, and whatever may evidence its Divine authority. It is written to the Christian Jews. The matter of it agrees very much with 2Pe 2:1-22 , and the scope is mostly the same, viz. to arm them against those who, by their wicked errors and wicked manners, secretly and slily brought in, might infect them, and seduce them into the same wickedness with themselves, whereby they might be exposed to the same judgment, which he pronounceth were like to come upon such.

JUDE CHAPTER 1

Jud 1:1-3 After a general address, Jude exhorteth Christians to

constancy in the received faith.

Jud 1:4-19 He foretelleth the punishment of certain false teachers

crept into the church, and describeth their evil doctrine

and manners.

Jud 1:20,21 He exhorteth true Christians to persevere in the

right faith, and in the love of God,

Jud 1:22-23 and to seek the reformation of others.

Jud 1:24,25 He concludeth with ascribing glory to God.

Jude called also Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus Mat 10:3 .

The servant of Jesus Christ not only in the general notion, as a believer, but in a more special, as an apostle. Priests and prophets in the Old Testament are peculiarly called God’ s servants, Psa 134:1-3 Amo 3:7 ; and so are ministers in the New, 2Ti 2:24 .

And brother of James that James who was the son of Alphaeus, Mat 10:3 . He mentions his brother to distinguish himself from Judas Iscariot; and his brother rather than his father, because James was most famous in the church, Act 15:1-41 Gal 2:9 1Co 9:5 ; as likewise to show his consent with his brother in his doctrine, and to make his Epistle the more acceptable.

To them that are sanctified by God the Father viz. as the prime efficient cause of sanctification, which he works in believers by the Son, through the Spirit.

And preserved in Jesus Christ: their salvation, and perseverance, and deliverance from dangers, not being in their own power; he intimates, that Christ was appointed to be their King, and Head, and Keeper, the Author and Finisher of their faith Heb 12:2 , and furnished with power for their protection and security, and that by him they were kept unto the salvation purchased for them, viz. by his powerful operation and gracious influence maintaining their faith and union with himself.

And called with an effectual calling, the beginning of their sanctification, before mentioned. The copulative, and, is not in the Greek; and the words may be read, sanctified by God the Father, preserved in Jesus Christ, as being called; and so called may be understood as going before the other two; and then the sense is, to the called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ; or, to them who, being called, are sanctified, &c.

MHCC: Jude (Book Introduction)

This epistle is addressed to all believers in the gospel. Its design appears to be to guard believers against the false teachers who had begun to creep into the Christian church, and to scatter dangerous tenets, by attempting to lower all Christianity into a merely nominal belief and outward profession of the gospel. Having thus denied the obligations of personal holiness, they taught their disciples to live in sinful courses, at the same time flattering them with the hope of eternal life. The vile character of these seducers is shown, and their sentence is denounced, and the epistle concludes with warnings, admonitions, and counsels to believers.

MHCC: Jude 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Jud 1:1-4) The apostle exhorts to stedfastness in the faith.

(Jud 1:5-7) The danger of being infected by false professors, and the dreadful punishment which shall be inflicted on them and their followers.

(Jud 1:8-16) An awful description of these seducers and their deplorable end.

(Jud 1:17-23) Believers cautioned against being surprised at such deceivers arising among them.

(Jud 1:24, Jud 1:25) The epistle ends with an encouraging doxology, or words of praise.

Matthew Henry: Jude (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The General Epistle of Jude

This epistle is styled (as are some few others) general or Catholic, because it is not immediately directed to any particular person, family, or church, but to the whole society of Christians of that time, lately converted to the faith of Christ, whether from Judaism or paganism: and it is, and will be, of standing, lasting, and special use in and to the church as long as Christianity, that is, as time, shall last. The general scope of it is much the same with that of the second chapter of the second epistle of Peter, which having been already explained, the less will need to be said on this. It is designed to warn us against seducers and their seduction, to inspire us with a warm love to, and a hearty concern for, truth (evident and important truth), and that in the closest conjunction with holiness, of which charity, or sincere unbiased brotherly-love, is a most essential character and inseparable branch. The truth we are to hold fast, and endeavour that others may be acquainted with and not depart fRom. has two special characters: - It is the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph 4:21; and it is truth after (or which is according to ) godliness, Tit 1:1. The gospel is the gospel of Christ. He has revealed it to us, and he is the main subject of it; and therefore we are indispensably bound to learn thence all we can of his person, natures, and offices: indifference as to this is inexcusable in any who call themselves Christians; and we know from what fountain we are wholly and solely to draw all necessary saving knowledge. Further, it is also a doctrine of godliness. Whatever doctrines favour the corrupt lusts of men cannot be of God, let the pleas and pretensions for them be what they will. Errors dangerous to the souls of men soon sprang up in the church. The servants slept and tares were sown. But such were the wisdom and kindness of Providence that they began sensibly to appear and show themselves, while some, at least, of the apostles were yet alive to confute them, and warn others against them. We are apt to think, If we had lived in their times, we should have been abundantly fenced against the attempts and artifices of seducers; but we have their testimony and their cautions, which is sufficient; and, if we will not believe their writings, neither should we have believed or regarded their sayings, if we had lived among them and conversed personally with them.

Matthew Henry: Jude 1 (Chapter Introduction)

We have here, I. An account of the penman of this epistle, a character of the church, the blessings and privileges of that happy society (Jud 1:1, Jud 1:2). II. The occasion of writing this epistle (Jud 1:3). III. A character of evil and perverse men, who had already sprung up in that infant state of the church, and would be succeeded by others of the like evil spirit and temper in after-times (Jud 1:4). IV. A caution against hearkening to and following after such, from the severity of God towards the unbelieving murmuring Israelites at their coming out of Egypt, the angels that fell, the sin and punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jud 1:5-7). V. To these the apostle likens the seducers against whom he was warning them, and describes them at large, (Jud 1:8-10, inclusive). VI. Then (as specially suitable to his argument) he cites an ancient prophecy of Enoch foretelling and describing the future judgment (Jud 1:14, Jud 1:15). VII. He enlarges on the seducers' character, and guards against the offence which honest minds might be apt to take at the so early permission of such things, by showing that it was foretold long before that so it must be (Jud 1:16-19). VIII. Exhorts them to perseverance in the faith, fervency in prayer, watchfulness against falling from the love of God, and a lively hope of eternal life (Jud 1:20, Jud 1:21). IX. Directs them how to act towards the erroneous and scandalous (Jud 1:22, Jud 1:23). And, X. Closes with an admirable doxology in the last two verses.

Barclay: Jude (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER OF JUDE

The Difficult And Neglected Letter

It may well be said that for the great majority of modern readers reading the little letter of Jude is a bewildering rather than a profitable undertaking. There are two verses which everyone knows--the resounding and magnificent doxology with which it ends:

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you

without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to

the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory,

majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and for

ever. Amen.

But, apart from these two great verses, Jude is largely unknown and seldom read. The reason for its difficulty is that it is written out of a background of thought, against the challenge of a situation, in pictures and with quotations, which are all quite strange to us. Beyond a doubt it would hit those who read it for the first time like a hammer-blow. It would be like a trumpet call to defend the faith. Moffatt calls Jude "a fiery cross to rouse the churches." But, as J. B. Mayor, one of its greatest editors, has said: "To a modern reader it is curious rather than edifying with the exception of the beginning and the end."

This is one of the great reasons for addressing ourselves to the study of Jude; for, when we understand Judethought and disentangle the situation against which he was writing, his letter becomes of the greatest interest for the history of the earliest church and by no means without relevance for today. There have indeed been times in the history of the church, and especially in its revivals when Jude was not far from being the most relevant book in the New Testament. Let us begin by simply setting down the substance of the letter without waiting for the explanations which must follow later.

Meeting The Threat

It had been Judeintention to write a treatise on the faith which all Christians share; but that task had to be laid aside in view of the rise of men whose conduct and thought were a threat to the Christian Church (Jud_1:3 ). In view of this situation the need was not so much to expound the faith as to rally Christians in its defence. Certain men who had insinuated themselves into the church were busily engaged in turning the grace of God into an excuse for open immorality and were denying the only true God and Jesus Christ the Lord (Jud_1:4 ). These men were immoral in life and heretical in belief.

The Warnings

Against these men Jude marshals his warnings. Let them remember the fate of the Israelites. They had been brought in safety out of Egypt but they had never been permitted to enter the Promised Land because of their unbelief (Jud_1:5 ). The reference is to Num_13:26-33 ; Num_14:1-29 . Although a man had received the grace of God, he might still lose his eternal salvation if he drifted into disobedience and unbelief. Some angels with the glory of heaven as their own had come to earth and corrupted mortal women with their lust (Gen_6:2 ); and now they were imprisoned in the abyss of darkness, awaiting judgment (Jud_1:6 ). He who rebels against God must look for judgment. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah had given themselves over to lust and to unnatural vice, and their destruction in flames is a dreadful warning to everyone who similarly goes astray (Jud_1:7 ).

The Evil Life

These men are visionaries of evil dreams; they defile their flesh; and they speak evil of the angels (Jud_1:8 ). Not even Michael the archangel, dare speak evil even of the evil angels. It had been given to Michael to bury the body of Moses. The devil had tried to stop him and claim the body for himself. Michael had spoken no evil against the devil, even in circumstances like that, but had simply said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jud_1:9 ). Angels must be respected, even when evil and hostile. These evil men condemn everything which they do not understand, and spiritual things are beyond their understanding. They do understand their fleshly instincts and allow themselves to be governed by them as the brute beasts do (Jud_1:10 ).

They are like Cain, the cynical, selfish murderer; they are like Balaam, whose one desire was for gain and who led the people into sin; they are like Korah, who rebelled against the legitimate authority of Moses and was swallowed up by the earth for his arrogant disobedience (Jud_1:11 ).

They are like the hidden rocks on which a ship may founder; they have their own clique in which they consort with people like themselves, and thus destroy Christian fellowship; they deceive others with their promises, like clouds which promise the longed-for rain and then pass over the sky; they are like fruitless and rootless trees, which have no harvest of good fruit; as the foaming spray of the waves casts the sea-weed and the wreckage on the beaches, they foam out shameless deeds; they are like disobedient stars who refuse to keep their appointed orbit and are doomed to the dark (Jud_1:13 ). Long ago the prophet Enoch had described these men and had prophesied their divine destruction (Jud_1:15 ). They murmur against all true authority and discipline as the children of Israel murmured against Moses in the desert; they are discontented with the lot which God has appointed to them; their lusts are their dictators; their speech is arrogant and proud; they are toadies of the great for sake of gain (Jud_1:16 ).

Words To The Faithful

Having castigated the evil men with this torrent of invective, Jude turns to the faithful. They could have expected all this to happen, for the apostles of Jesus Christ had foretold the rise of evil men (Jud_1:18-19 ). But the duty of the true Christian is to build his life on the foundation of the most holy faith; to learn to pray in the power of the Holy Spirit; to remember the conditions of the covenant into which the love of God has called him; to wait for the mercy of Jesus Christ (Jud_1:20-21 ).

As for the false thinkers and the loose livers--some of them may be saved with pity while they are still hesitating on the brink of their evil ways; others have to be snatched like brands from the burning; and, in all his rescue work, the Christian must have that godly fear which will love the sinner but hate the sin and must avoid the pollution of those he seeks to save (Jud_1:22-23 ).

And all the time there will be with him the power of that God who can keep him from falling and bring him pure and joyful into his presence (Jud_1:24-25 ).

The Heretics

Who were the heretics whom Jude blasts, and what were their beliefs and what their way of life? Jude never tells us. He was not a theologian but, as Moffatt says, "a plain, honest leader of the church." "He denounces rather than describes" the heresies he attacks. He does not seek to argue and to refute, for he writes as one "who knows when round indignation is more telling than argument." But from the letter itself we can deduce three things about these heretics.

(i) They were antinomians. Antinomians have existed in every age of the church. They are people who pervert grace. Their position is that the law is dead and they are under grace. The prescriptions of the law may apply to other people, but they no longer apply to them. They can do absolutely what they like. Grace is supreme; it can forgive any sin; the more the sin, the more the opportunities for grace to abound (Rom 6 ). The body is of no importance; what matters is the inward heart of man. All things belong to Christ, and, therefore, all things are theirs. And so for them there is nothing forbidden.

So Judeheretics turn the grace of God into an excuse for flagrant immorality (Jud_1:4 ); they even practise shameless unnatural vices, as the people of Sodom did (Jud_1:7 ). They defile the flesh and think it no sin (Jud_1:8 ). They allow their brute instincts to rule their lives (Jud_1:10 ). With their sensual ways, they are like to make shipwreck of the love feasts of the church (Jud_1:12 ). It is by their own lusts that they direct their lives (Jud_1:16 ).

Modern Examples Of The Ancient Heresy

It is a curious and tragic fact of history that the church has never been entirely free of this antinomianism; and it is natural that it has flourished most in the ages when the wonder of grace was being rediscovered.

It appeared in the Ranters of the seventeenth century. The Ranters were pantheists and antinomians. A pantheist believes that God is everything; literally all things are Christ and Christ is the end of the law. They talked of "Christ within them," and paid no heed to the church or its ministry, and belittled scripture. One of them called Bottomley wrote: "It is not safe to go to the Bible to see what others have spoken and written of the mind of God as to see what God speaks within me, and to follow the doctrine and leading of it in me." When George Fox rebuked them for their lewd practices, they answered, "We are God." This may sound very fine, but, as John Wesley was to say, it most often resulted in "a gospel of the flesh." It was their argument that "swearing, adultery, drunkenness and theft are not sinful unless the person guilty of them apprehends them to be so." When Fox was a prisoner at Charing Cross they came to see him and mightily offended him by calling for drink and tobacco. They swore terribly and when Fox rebuked them, justified themselves by saying that Scripture tells us that Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the priests, and the angel all swore. To which Fox replied that he who was before Abraham commanded, "Swear not at all." Richard Baxter said of them, "They conjoined a cursed doctrine of libertinism, which brought them to all abominable filthiness of life; they taught God regardeth not the actions of the outward man, but of the heart; and that to the pure all things are pure (even things forbidden) and so, as allowed by God, they spoke most hideous words of blasphemy, and many of them committed whoredoms commonly.... The horrid villainies of this sect did speedily extinguish it." Doubtless many of the Ranters were insane; doubtless some of them were pernicious and deliberate sensualists; but doubtless, too, some of them were earnest but misguided men, who had misunderstood the meaning of grace and freedom from the law.

Later John Wesley was to have trouble with the antinomians. He talks of them preaching a gospel of flesh and blood. At Jenninghall he says that "the antinomians had laboured hard in the Devilservice." At Birmingham he says that "the fierce, unclean, brutish, blasphemous antinomians" had utterly destroyed the spiritual life of the congregation. He tells of a certain Roger Ball who insinuated himself into the life of the congregation at Dublin. At first he seemed to be so spiritually-minded a man that the congregation welcomed him as being preeminently suited for the service and ministry of the church. He showed himself in time to be "full of guile and of the most abominable errors, one of which was that a believer had a right to all women." He would not communicate, for under grace a man must "touch not, taste not, handle not." He would not preach and abandoned the church services because, he said, "The dear Lamb is the only preacher."

Wesley, deliberately to show the position of these antinomians, related in his Journal a conversation which he had with one of them at Birmingham. It ran as follows. "Do you believe that you have nothing to do with the law of God?" "I have not; I am not under the law; I live by faith." "Have you, as living by faith, a right to everything in the world?" "I have. All is mine, since Christ is mine." "May you then take anything you will anywhere? Suppose out of a shop without the consent or knowledge of the owner?" "I may, if I want, for it is mine. Only I will not give offence." "Have you a right to all the women in the world" "Yes, if they consent." "And is not that a sin?" "Yes, to him who thinks it is a sin; but not to those whose hearts are free."

Repeatedly Wesley had to meet these people, as George Fox had to meet them. John Bunyan, too, came up against the Ranters who claimed complete freedom from the moral law and looked with contempt on the ethics of the stricter Christian. "These would condemn me as legal and dark, pretending that they only had attained perfection that could do what they would and not sin." One of them, whom Bunyan knew, "gave himself up to all manner of filthiness, especially uncleanness...and would laugh at all exhortations to sobriety. When I laboured to rebuke his wickedness, he would laugh the more."

Judeheretics have existed in every Christian generation and, even if they do not go all the way, there are still many who in their heart of hearts trade upon Godforgiveness and make his grace an excuse to sin.

The Denial Of God And Of Jesus Christ

(ii) Of the antinomianism and blatant immorality of the heretics whom Jude condemns there is no doubt. The other two faults with which he charges them are not so obvious in their meaning. He charges them with, as the Revised Standard Version has it, "denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jud_1:4 ). The closing doxology is to "the only God," a phrase which occurs again in Rom_16:27 ; 1Ti_1:17 ; 1Ti_6:15 . The reiteration of the word only is significant. If Jude talks about our only Master and Lord and, about the only God, it is natural to assume that there must have been those who questioned the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and of God. Can we trace any such line of thought in the early church and, if so, does it fit in with any other evidence which hints within the letter itself may supply?

As so often in the New Testament, we are again in contact with that type of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism. Its basic idea was that this was a dualistic universe, a universe with two eternal principles in it. From the beginning of time there had always been spirit and matter. Spirit was essentially good; matter was essentially evil. Out of this flawed matter the world was created. Now God is pure spirit and, therefore, could not possibly handle this essentially evil matter. How then was creation effected? God put out a series of aeons or emanations; each of these aeons was farther away from him. At the end of this long chain, remote from God, there was an aeon who was able to touch matter; and it was this aeon, this distant and secondary god, who actually created the world.

Nor was this all that was in Gnostic thought. As the aeons in the series grew more distant from God, they grew more ignorant of him; and also grew more hostile to him. The creating aeon, at the end of the series, was at once totally ignorant of and totally hostile to God.

Having got that length, the Gnostics took another step. They identified the true God with the God of the New Testament and they identified the secondary, ignorant and hostile god with the God of the Old Testament. As they saw it, the God of creation was a different being from the God of revelation and redemption. Christianity on the other hand believes in the only God, the one God of creation, providence and redemption.

This was the Gnostic explanation of sin. It was because creation was carried out, in the first place, from evil matter and, in the second place, by an ignorant god, that sin and suffering and all imperfection existed.

This Gnostic line of thought had one curious, but perfectly logical, result. If the God of the Old Testament was ignorant of and hostile to the true God, it must follow that the people whom that ignorant God hurt were in fact good people. Clearly the hostile God would be hostile to the people who were the true servants of the true God. The Gnostics, therefore, so to speak, turned the Old Testament upside down and regarded its heroes as villains and its villains as heroes. So there was a sect of these Gnostics called Ophites, because they worshipped the serpent of Eden; and there were those who regarded Cain and Korah and Balaam as great heroes. It is these very people whom Jude uses as tragic and terrible examples of sin.

So we may take it that the heretics whom Jude attacks are Gnostics who denied the oneness of God, who regarded the God of creation as different from the God of redemption, who saw in the Old Testament God an ignorant enemy of the true God and who, therefore, turned the Old Testament upside down to regard its sinners as servants of the true God and its saints as servants of the hostile God.

Not only did these heretics deny the oneness of God, they also denied "our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ." That is to say, they denied the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. How does that fit in with the Gnostic ideas so far as they are known to us? We have seen that, according to Gnostic belief, God put out a series of aeons between himself and the world. The Gnostics regarded Jesus Christ as one of these aeons. They did not regard him as our only, Master and Lord; he was only one among the many who were links between God and man, although he might be the highest and the closest of all.

There is still one other hint about these heretics in Jude, a hint which also fits in with what we know about the Gnostics. In Jud_1:19 , Jude describes them as "these who set up divisions." The heretics introduce some kind of class distinctions within the fellowship of the Church. What were these distinctions?

We have seen that between man and God there stretched an infinite series of aeons. The aim of man must be to achieve contact with God. To obtain this his soul must traverse this infinite series of links between God and man. The Gnostics held that to achieve this a very special and esoteric knowledge was required. So deep was this knowledge that only very few could attain to it.

The Gnostics, therefore, divided men into two classes, the pneumatikoi (G4152) and the psuchikoi (G5591). The pneuma (G4151) was the spirit of man, that which made him kin to God--and the pneumatikoi (G4152) were the spiritual people, the people whose spirits were so highly developed and intellectual that they were able to climb the long ladder and reach God. These pneumatikoi (G4152), the Gnostics claimed, were so spiritually and intellectually equipped that they could become as good as Jesus--Irenaeus says that some of them believed that the pneumatikoi (G4152) could become better than Jesus and attain direct union with God.

On the other hand, the psuche (G5590) was simply the principle of physical life. All things which live had psuche (G5590); it was something which man shared with the animal creation and even with growing plants. The psuchikoi (G5591) were ordinary people; they had physical life but their pneuma (G4151) was undeveloped and they were incapable of ever gaining the intellectual wisdom which would enable them to climb the long road to God. The pneumatikoi (G4152) were a very small and select minority; the psuchikoi (G5591) were the vast majority of ordinary people.

It is clear to see that this kind of belief was inevitably productive of spiritual snobbery and pride. It introduced into the church the worst kind of class distinction.

So, then, the heretics whom Jude attacks were men who denied the oneness of God and split him into an ignorant creating God and a truly spiritual God; who denied the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and saw him as only one of the links between God and man; who erected class distinctions within the church and limited fellowship with God to the intellectual few.

The Denial Of The Angels

(iii) It is further inferred that these heretics denied and insulted the angels. It is said they "reject authority, and revile the glorious ones" (Jud_1:8 ). The words "authority" and "glorious ones" describe ranks in the Jewish hierarchy of angels. Jud_1:9 is a reference to a story in the Assumption of Moses. It is there told that Michael was given the task of burying the body of Moses. The devil tried to stop him and claim the body. Michael made no charge against the devil and said nothing against him. He said only, "The Lord rebuke you!" If Michael, the archangel, on such an occasion said nothing against the prince of evil angels, clearly no man can speak ill of the angels.

The Jewish belief in angels was very elaborate. Every nation had its protecting angel. Every person, even every child, had its angel. All the forces of nature, the wind and the sea and the fire and all the others, were under the control of angels. It could even be said "Every blade of grass has its angel." Clearly the heretics attacked the angels. It is likely that they said that the angels were the servants of the ignorant and hostile creator God and that a Christian must have nothing to do with them. We cannot quite be sure what lies behind this, but to all their other errors the heretics added the despising of the angels; and to Jude this seemed an evil thing.

Jude And The New Testament

We must now examine the questions regarding the date and the authorship of Jude.

Jude had some difficulty in getting into the New Testament at all; it is one of the books whose position was always insecure and which were late in gaining full acceptance as part of the New Testament. Let us briefly set out the opinions of the great fathers and scholars of the early church about it.

Jude is included in the Muratorian Canon, which dates to about A.D. 170, and may be regarded as the first semi-official list of the books accepted by the Church. The inclusion of Jude is strange when we remember that the Muratorian Canon does not include in its list Hebrews and First Peter. But thereafter Jude is for long spoken of with a doubt. In the middle of the third century Origen knew and used it, but he was well aware that there were many who questioned its right to be scripture. Eusebius, the great scholar of the middle of the fourth century, made a deliberate examination of the position of the various books which were in use and he classes Jude amongst the books which are disputed.

Jerome, who produced the Vulgate, had his doubts about Jude; and it is in him that we find one of the reasons for the hesitation which was felt towards it. The strange thing about Jude is the way in which it quotes as authorities books which are outside the Old Testament. It uses as scripture certain books which were written between the Old and the New Testaments and were never generally regarded as scripture. Here are two definite instances. The reference in Jud_1:9 to Michael disputing with the devil about the body of Moses is taken from an apocryphal book called The Assumption of Moses. In Jud_1:14-15 Jude confirms his argument with a quotation from prophecy, as, indeed, is the habit of all the New Testament writers; but Judequotation is, in fact, taken from the Book of Enoch, which he appears to regard as scripture. Jerome tells us that it was Judehabit of using non-scriptural books as scripture which made some people regard him with suspicion; and towards the end of the third century in Alexandria it was from the very same charge that Didymus defended him. It is perhaps the strangest thing in Jude that he uses these non-scriptural books as other New Testament writers use the prophets; and in Jud_1:17-18 he makes use of a saying of the apostles which is not identifiable at all.

Jude, then, was one of the books which took a long time to gain an assured place in the New Testament; but by the fourth century its place was secure.

The Date

There are definite indications that Jude is not an early book. It speaks of the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jud_1:3 ). That way of speaking seems to look back a long way and to come from the time when there was a body of belief which was orthodoxy. In Jud_1:17-18 he urges his people to remember the words of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. That seems to come from a time when the apostles were no longer there and the Church was looking back on their teaching. The atmosphere of Jude is of a book which looks back.

Beside that we have to set the fact that, as it seems to us, Second Peter makes use of Jude to a very large extent. Anyone can see that its second chapter has the closest possible connection with Jude. It is quite certain that one of these writers was borrowing from the other. On general grounds it is much more likely that the author of Second Peter would incorporate the whole of Jude into his work than that Jude would, for no apparent reason, take over only one section of Second Peter. Now, if we believe that Second Peter uses it, Jude cannot be very late, even if it is not early.

It is true that Jude looks back on the apostles; but it is also true that, with the exception of John, all the apostles were dead by A.D. 70. Taking together the fact that Jude looks back on the apostles and the fact that Second Peter uses it, a date about A.D. 80 to 90 would suit the writing of Jude.

The Authorship Of Jude

Who was this Jude, or Judas, who wrote this letter? He calls himself the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James. In the New Testament there are five people called Judas.

(i) There is the Judas of Damascus in whose house Paul was praying after his conversion on the Damascus road (Act_9:11 ).

(ii) There is Judas Barsabas, a leading figure in the councils of the church who, along with Silas, was the bearer to Antioch of the decision of the Council of Jerusalem when the door of the church was opened to the Gentiles (Act_15:22 , Act_15:27 , Act_15:32 ). This Judas was also a prophet (Act_15:32 ).

(iii) There is Judas Iscariot.

None of these three has ever seriously been considered as the author of this letter.

(iv) There is the second Judas in the apostolic band. John calls him Judas, not Iscariot (Joh_14:22 ). In Lukelist of the Twelve there is an apostle whom the King James Version calls Judas the brother of James (Luk_6:16 ; Act_1:13 ). If we were to depend solely on the King James Version we might well think that here we have a serious candidate for the authorship of this letter, and, indeed, Tertullian calls the writer the Apostle Judas. But in the Greek this man is simply called Judas of James. This is a very common idiom in Greek and almost always it means not brother of, but son of; so that Judas of James in the list of the Twelve is not Judas the brother of James but Judas the son of James, as all the newer translations show.

(v) There is the Judas who was the brother of Jesus (Mat_13:55 ; Mar_6:3 ). If any of the New Testament Judases is the writer of this letter, it must be this one, for only he could truly be called the brother of James.

Is this little letter to be taken as a letter of the Judas who was the brother of our Lord? If so, it would give it a special interest. But there are objections.

(i) If Jude to use the form of his name with which we are familiar--was the brother of Jesus, why does he not say so? Why does he identify himself as Jude the brother of James rather than as Jude the brother of Jesus? It would surely be explanation enough to say that he shrank from taking so great a title of honour to himself. Even if it was true that he was the brother of Jesus, he might well prefer in humility to call himself his servant, for Jesus was not only his brother but his Lord. Further, Jude the brother of James would in all probability never be outside Palestine in all his life. The church he would know would be that at Jerusalem, and of that church James was the undoubted head. If he was writing to churches in Palestine, his relationship to James was the natural thing to stress. When we come to think of it, it would be more surprising that Jude should call himself the brother of Jesus than that he should call himself the servant of Jesus Christ.

(ii) It is objected that Jude calls himself the servant of Jesus Christ and thereby calls himself an apostle. "Servants of God" was the Old Testament title for the prophets. God would not do anything without revealing it first to his servants the prophets (Amo_3:7 ). What had been a prophetic title in the Old Testament became an apostolic title in the New Testament. Paul speaks of himself as the servant of Jesus Christ (Rom_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ). He is spoken of as the servant of God in the Pastoral Epistles (Tit_1:1 ), and that is also the title which James takes to himself (Jam_1:1 ). It is concluded, therefore, that by calling himself "the Servant of Jesus Christ" Jude is claiming to be an apostle.

There are two answers to that. First, the title servant of Jesus Christ is not confined to the Twelve, for it is given by Paul to Timothy (Phi_1:1 ). Second, even if it is regarded as a title confined to the apostles in the wider sense of the word, we find the brethren of the Lord associated with the eleven after the Ascension (Act_1:14 ), and Jude, like James, may well have been among them; and we learn that the brothers of Jesus were prominent in the missionary work of the Church (1Co_9:5 ). Such evidence as we have would tend to prove that Jude, the brother of our Lord, was one of the apostolic circle and that the title servant of Jesus Christ is perfectly applicable to him.

(iii) It is argued that the Jude of Palestine, who was the brother of Jesus, could not have written the Greek of this letter as he would be an Aramaic speaker. That is not a safe argument. Jude would certainly know Greek, for it was the lingua franca of the ancient world, which all men spoke in addition to their own language. The Greek of Jude is rugged and forceful; it might well be within Judecompetence to write it for himself and, even if he could not do so, he may well have had a helper and translator such as Peter had in Silvanus.

(iv) It might be argued that the heresy which Jude is attacking is Gnosticism and that Gnosticism is much more a Greek than a Jewish way of thought--and what would Jude of Palestine be doing writing to Greeks? But an odd fact about this heresy is that it is the very opposite of orthodox Judaism. The controller of all Jewish action was the sacred law; basic belief of Jewish religion was that there was one God; the Jewish belief in angels was highly developed. It is by no means difficult to suppose that when certain Jews entered the Christian faith, they swung to the other extreme. It is easy to imagine a Jew who had all his life been in servitude to the law suddenly discovering grace and plunging into antinomianism as a reaction against his former legalism; and reacting similarly against the traditional Jewish belief in one God and in angels. It is, in fact, easy to see in the heretics whom Jude attacks Jews who had come into the Christian Church rather as renegades from Judaism than as truly convinced Christians.

(v) Lastly, it might be argued that, if this letter had been known to have been the work of Jude the brother of Jesus, it would not have been so long in gaining an entry into the New Testament. But before the end of the first century the church was largely Gentile and the Jews were regarded as the enemies and the slanderers of the church. During his life-time Jesusrothers had in fact been his enemies; and it could well have happened that a letter as Jewish as Jude might have had a struggle against prejudice to get into the New Testament, even if its author was the brother of Jesus.

Jude The Brother Of Jesus

If this letter is not the work of Jude, the brother of Jesus, what are the alternatives suggested? On the whole, they are two.

(i) The letter is the work of a man called Jude of whom nothing is otherwise known. This theory has to meet a twofold difficulty. First, there is the coincidence that this Jude is also the brother of James. Second, it is hard to explain how so small a letter ever came to have any authority at all, if it is the work of someone quite unknown.

(ii) The letter is pseudonymous. That is to say, it was written by someone else and then attached to the name of Jude. That was a common practice in the ancient world. Between the Old and New Testament scores of books were written and attached to the names of Moses, Enoch, Baruch, Isaiah, Solomon and many an other. No one saw anything wrong in that. But two things are to be noted about Jude.

(a) In all such publications the name to which the book was attached was a famous name; but Jude, the brother of our Lord, was a person who was completely obscure; he is not numbered amongst the great names of the early church. There is a story that in the days of Domitian there was a deliberate attempt to see to it that Christianity did not spread. News came to the Roman authority that certain descendants of Jesus were still alive, amongst them the grandsons of Jude. The Romans felt that it was possible that rebellion might gather around these men and they were ordered to appear before the Roman courts. When they did so, they were seen to be horny-handed sons of toil and were dismissed as being unimportant and quite harmless. Obviously Jude was Jude the obscure and there could have been no possible reason for attaching a book to the name of a man whom nobody knew.

(b) When a book was written pseudonymously, the reader was never left in any doubt as to the person whose name it was being attached to. If this letter had been issued as the work of Judas the brother of our Lord, he would certainly have been given that title in such a way that no one could mistake it; and yet, in fact, it is quite unclear who the author is.

Jude is obviously Jewish; its references and allusions are such that only a Jew could understand. It is simple and rugged; it is vivid and pictorial. It is clearly the work of a simple thinker rather than of a theologian. It fits Jude the brother of our Lord. It is attached to his name, and there could be no reason for so attaching it unless he did in fact write it.

It is our opinion that this little letter is actually the work of Judas, the brother of Jesus.

FURTHER READING

Jude

C. Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; G)

C. E. B. Cranfield, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Tch; E)

J. B. Mayor, The Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude (MmC; G)

J. Moffatt, The General Epistles: James, Peter and Jude (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Jude 1 (Chapter Introduction)

What It Means To Be A Christian (Jud_1:1-2)

The Call Of God (Jud_1:1-2 Continued)

Defending The Faith (Jud_1:3)

The Peril From Within (Jud_1:4)

The Dreadful Examples (Jud_1:5-7)

Contempt For The Angels (Jud_1:8-9)

The Gospel Of The Flesh (Jud_1:10)

Lessons From History (Jud_1:11)

The Picture Of Wicked Men (Jud_1:12-16)

The Selfishness Of Wicked Men (Jud_1:12-16 Continued)

The Fate Of Disobedience (Jud_1:12-16 Continued)

The Characteristics Of Evil Men (Jud_1:12-16 Continued)

The Characteristics Of Error (1) (Jud_1:17-19)

The Characteristics Of Error (2) (Jud_1:17-19 Continued)

The Characteristics Of Goodness (Jud_1:20-21)

Reclaiming The Lost (Jud_1:22-23)

The Final Ascription Of Praise (Jud_1:24-25)

Constable: Jude (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

Traditionally the writer of this epistle was Judas, the half-brother of Jesus Christ (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3) and the brother of James (Jude 1; Acts 15:13). Some scholars have challenged this identification in recent years, but they have not proved it incorrect. As such, Jude (Gr. Judas, Heb. Judah, "praise") was a Jewish Christian. Like James he was a Hellenized Galilean Jew who wrote with a cultivated Greek style.¹

Jesus' physical brothers did not believe in Him while He was ministering (John 7:5). James became a believer after Jesus' resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), and we may assume that Jude did too. Jesus' brothers were part of the praying group that awaited the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14). They were well known in the early church (1 Cor. 9:5).

Jude's many allusions to the Old Testament suggest that his original readers were very familiar with it. While this could have been true of any Christians, it would have been particularly true of Jewish Christians. Consequently many commentators believe Jude addressed this epistle to Jewish Christians primarily.

". . . we should not see it as a catholic letter' addressed to all Christians, but as a work written with a specific, localized audience in mind."²

"A predominantly, but not exclusively, Jewish Christian community in a Gentile society seems to account best for what little we can gather about the recipients of Jude's letter."³

The time of writing is very difficult to ascertain. Since Jude was a younger brother of Jesus he may have lived into the second century. After the Jewish revolts against Rome (A.D. 66-70) Jude probably lived outside Jerusalem and perhaps outside Palestine if he was still alive. References in the text to the false teachers and the apostles (vv. 3-5, 17) suggest a condition in the church some years after the day of Pentecost. Similarities with Peter's writings have led some to date Jude about the time Peter wrote.⁴ As is obvious, these are all very tentative guesses. Perhaps a date between A.D. 67 and 80 would be correct. At this time Jude may have been living somewhere outside Palestine.⁵

Fortunately the indefiniteness of the historical background of this epistle does not affect its message or value.

"The Epistle of Jude has stronger attestation than 2 Peter."⁶

Genre

Many scholars regard this epistle as an "epistolary sermon."⁷ Jude could have delivered what he said in this epistle as a homily (sermon) if he had been in his readers' presence. Instead he cast it in the form of a letter since he could not address them directly. Other New Testament epistles that are really written homilies include James, Hebrews, and 1 John.

Message⁸

The Book of Jude is in the Bible to teach us that we must be careful to remain faithful to the faith. That is a positive statement. Jude's emphasis, however, was mainly negative. He warned of the danger of departing from the faith once for all delivered to the saints (i.e., Scriptural teaching).

The subject of Jude then is the peril of apostasy (i.e., departure from the truth). Apostasy is a matter of obedience, not salvation.

Jude first defined the character of apostasy (v. 4). I believe the progression in this verse is significant. It shows how apostasy develops. It moves from ungodliness to licentiousness and then to denial.

An ungodly person is one who has within himself refused to submit to God's authority over him. He may be a non-Christian or a Christian.

This involves a volitional choice.

Having made that choice one then proceeds to act on that basis. Departure from God's will begins to mark his behavior. He takes license.

His apostasy moves from the volitional area into the moral area.

The next step is that he justifies his behavior with intellectual rationalization. He has to convince himself that what he is doing is right to silence his guilty conscience. Consequently he figures a way to convince himself that wrong is right. In so doing he must also show that right is wrong. This leads to a denial of God's Word.

He has moved from volitional to moral apostasy and then to intellectual apostasy.

This means that heresy in the church normally has its ultimate source in personal failure to submit to God in some area of individual life. This is the essential character of apostasy.

Next Jude illustrated the nature and consequences of apostasy (vv. 5-11). He did this by citing three groups followed by three individuals.

Group #1: The nature of apostasy in Israel following the Exodus was rebellion against God's revealed will for her, the volitional root problem (v. 5). This resulted in the premature death of the rebels. They did not enter the land.

Group #2: The nature of the apostasy in heaven was some angels' abandonment of God's place for them, the moral error (v. 6). Their action in rebelling revealed the rebellion in their hearts. The consequence of this conduct was and is present bondage.

Group #3: The nature of apostasy in Sodom and Gomorrah was repudiation of God's law over the residents (v. 7). By their actions these ungodly people were saying their way of life was right and God's was wrong. The result of this apostasy was and is ultimate judgment.

Individual #1: Jude used Cain to illustrate apostasy because he did not submit to God's will for him (v. 11). He was a self-righteous person.

Individual #2: Jude used Balaam to illustrate apostasy because his behavior was a direct result of his lack of submission (v. 11). He was a greedy person who lusted after money.

Individual #3: Jude used Korah to illustrate apostasy because he tried to make wrong right and right wrong (v. 11). He was a presumptuous person. Self-righteousness, greed, and presumption identify apostasy in its various stages: volitional, moral, and intellectual.

Jude also pointed out other characteristics of apostasy and apostates that follow in verses 12 and 13. He did not want us to fail to identify departure from the truth.

What did Jude urge his readers to do in view of the peril that apostasy poses? He gave a general command and then specific commandments.

Note first the general command (v. 3). We are to contend earnestly for the faith. This implies deliberate and determined effort. We learn how to do this in the specific commandments that follow.

Note these specific commandments in verses 20-23. Keeping these commandments involves three things.

1. It involves building ourselves up (v. 20). This comes through spiritual growth that takes place by walking by faith. This counters the volitional aspect of apostasy.

2. It involves praying in the Spirit (v. 20). This means calling on God for help. This counters the moral aspect of apostasy.

3. It involves looking to the future (vv. 21-22). This requires keeping ultimate realities clearly in focus. This counters the intellectual aspect of apostasy.

We contend earnestly for the faith best by remaining faithful to it personally and by demonstrating an example of faithfulness to others. This is Jude's method. He did not have in mind apologetics and Christian evidences, though there is a place for that.

By way of application let me raise and answer two questions.

First, what is the faith for which we are to contend? It is the faith once for all delivered to the saints, namely God's special revelation contained in Scripture. That faith centers on the person of Jesus Christ. This is the mission of the church (Matt. 28:19-20).

Second, what is the contending that defends the faith? It is essentially volitional submission to God's authority. It is also behavior that is in harmony with His will morally. It is also conviction that is consistent with His revelation intellectually. This is the calling of each Christian. Whereas there is much apostasy today, it is possible to remain faithful. Jude wrote to enable us to be faithful (v. 24). May our Lord be able to say to each of us, "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

Constable: Jude (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction vv. 1-2

II. The purpose of this epistle vv. 3-4

III. Warnings against false teachers vv. 5-16

A. Previous failures vv. 5-7

1. The example of certain Israelites v. 5

2. The example of certain angels v. 6

3. The example of certain pagans v. 7

B. Present failures vv. 8-16

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

2. The seriousness of the error vv. 10-13

3. The consequences of the error vv. 14-16

IV. Exhortation to the faithful vv. 17-23

A. The reminder to remember the apostles' warning vv. 17-19

B. The positive instruction of the readers vv. 20-23

V. Conclusion vv. 24-25

A former student of mine, Brian Baker, submitted the following structural study of Jude in the spring of 1995. He concluded that Jude deliberately constructed his book in a chiastic structure to focus on the warning of woe in verse 11.

A To you who are kept in Jesus Christ (1)

B Mercy to you (2)

C Common salvation (3a)

D Contend earnestly for the faith (3b)

E Licentious people (4)

F I remind you (5a)

G The Lord destroyed unbelievers (5b)

H Angels in darkness for rebelling (6)

I Sodom and Gomorrah an example (7)

J Defilement during sleep (8)

K Michael and Satan argued about Moses (9)

L Like unreasoning animals (10)

M Destruction for ungodly actions (10)

N Woe to them! (11)

M' Cain punished for ungodly actions (11)

L' Balaam's unreasoning animal (11)

K' Korah disputed with Moses (11)

J' Hidden reefs present unseen danger (12)

I' Open exhibition of shame (12-13)

H' Stars wander in darkness (13)

G' Enoch prophesied judgment on the ungodly (14-15)

F' Remember the apostles' warning (17)

E' Mocking people (18-19)

D' Build yourselves up in the faith (20)

C' Wait for eternal life (21)

B' Have mercy on some (22-23)

A' To Him who keeps you from from falling (24)

Constable: Jude

Jude

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. London: Rivingtons, 1859-1861.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letters of John and Jude. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary series. 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1961.

Blum, Edwin A. "Jude." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Cedar, Paul A. James, 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

Coder, S. Maxwell. Jude: The Acts of the Apostates. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Desjardins, Michel. "The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More About the Godly' Than the Ungodly'?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (June 1987):89-102.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Jude, Epistle of," by A. S. Peake.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Jude, Epistle of," by F. H. Chase.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Peter and Jude" In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 437-71. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Green, Michael. The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vol. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "An Exposition of Jude 3-4." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):142-51.

_____. "An Exposition of Jude 12-16." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):238-49.

_____. "An Exposition of Jude 17-23." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):355-66.

_____. Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary. Greenville, S.C.: Unusual Publications, 1989.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1939 ed. S.v. "Jude, The Epistle of," by William G. Moorehead.

Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Thornapple Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scripture. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 12: James--Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Oosterzee, G. T. C. Fronmüller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Lawlor, George Lawrence. Translation and Exposition of the Epistle of Jude. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Angsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Litfin, A. Duane. "A Biblical Strategy for Confronting the Cults." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):232-40.

MacDonald, William. II Peter and Jude: The Christian and Apostasy. Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1972.

Mayor, J. B. "The General Epistle of Jude." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. 5 vols. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897-1910.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Pentecost, Edward C. "Jude." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 917-24. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Plummer, Alfred. "The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude." In An Exposition of the Bible. 6 vols. Hartford, Conn.: S. S. Scranton Co., 1903.

Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1964.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Salmond, S. D. F. "Jude." In The Pulpit Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Senior, Donald. "The Letters of Jude and Second Peter." The Bible Today 25:4 (July 1987):209-14.

Sidebottom, E. M. James, Jude, 2 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thompson, R. Duane. "Jude." In The Wesleyan Bible Commentary. 6 vols. Edited by Charles W. Carter. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964-1969.

The Twentieth Century New Testament: A Translation into Modern English. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.

Wallas, David H. "Jude." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1487-90. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

Wand, J. W. C. The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen & Co., 1934.

Ward, Ronald A. The Epistles of John and Jude: A Study Manual. Shield Bible Study series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

Wilkin, Robert N. "He Is Able to Keep You From Stumbling! Jude 24." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:1 (January-February 1994):2-3.

Williams, Nathaniel Marshman. "Commentary on the Epistle of Jude." In An American Commentary on the New Testament. 1888. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n.d.

Witmer, John A. "The Truth about Error." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):248-53.

Wolff, Richard. A Commentary on the Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960.

Woods, Guy N. A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1954.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Jude (Book Introduction)

THE

CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE,

THE APOSTLE.

INTRODUCTION.

This Epistle, as we find by Eusebius (lib. iii. History of the Church, chap. xxv.) and St. Jerome, (in Catal.) was not everywhere received as canonical till about the end of the fourth age [century]. It is cited by Origen, hom. vii. in Josue [Joshua]; by Tertullian, lib. de cultu fœminarum; by Clement of Alexandria, lib. iii. Pædag.; by St. Athanasius, in Synopsi; by St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Carm. xxxiv.; by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 4ta.; by the councils of Laodicea and the third council of Carthage; by St. Augustine, lib. ii. de Doct. Christiana, chap. viii. See Tillemont, and Nat. Alex. in his preface to this epistle. The time when it was written is uncertain, only it is insinuated ver. 17 that few of the apostles were then living, perhaps only St. John. The design was to give all Christians a horror of the detestable doctrine and infamous practices of the Simonites, Nicolaites, and such heretics, who having the name of Christians, were become a scandal to religion and to all mankind, as may be seen in St. Irenæus and St. Epiphanius. He copies in a manner what St. Peter had written in his third Epistle, Chap. ii. (Witham) --- St. Jude in the first part of his Epistle, (ver. 1 to 16) writes against certain heretics of his day, known in history by the name of Gnostics, whose extravagant opinions and shameful and criminal disorders have been described by St. Epiphanius, St. Irenæus, and other Fathers. In the second part, he seems to have principally in view such as were to arise in the latter times; and he exhorts such of the faithful as should live to see those days, to remain firm in the faith which they had received, applying themselves to prayer, persevering in charity, and awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ and eternal life, which He has promised them. St. Jude in thus exerting himself, like St. Peter, against the first and last heresies, has invincibly established the perpetuity of the Catholic Church. With regard to the doubts of certain authors relative to the authenticity of this Epistle, we can oppose Origen, who says that St. Jude wrote a letter, which in the few lines it contains, includes discourses full of force and heavenly grace --- Greek: Ioudas egrapsen epistolen oligostichon men, pepleromenen de ton tes ouraniou charitos erromenon logon. --- And St. Epiphanius says, that he believed the Holy Ghost inspired St. Jude with the design of writing against the Gnostics in the letter he has left us....We find it inserted in the ancient catalogues of sacred Scripture, as in that of the council of Laodicea, canon. lx; of Carthage, canon xlvii: nor can there be any reasonable doubt at present for admitting it into the canon of Scripture. It is received by the Catholic Church, and has been received ever since the fourth age [century]. What gave doubts relative to the authenticity of this Epistle, was the author's quoting a prophecy of Enoch, which seemed to have been taken from a spurious work published under the name of this patriarch, and a fact concerning the death of Moses, not found in the canonical books of the Old Testament; but the apostle might have cited the prophecy of Enoch, and the fact concerning Moses, on the faith of some ancient tradition, without a reference to any book. Eusebius (History of the Church, lib. iii. chap. xxv.) bears testimony that this Epistle, though not frequently cited by the ancients, was publicly read in many Churches. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the later Fathers, had admitted it as part of canonical Scripture. Hence Luther, the Centuriators of Magdeburg, and the Anabaptists, have no just reason to look upon this Epistle as doubtful. Le Clerc, in his Hist. Eccles. (an. 90.) acts more candidly in admitting it without any scruple. As for the exception Grotius take from St. Jude not assuming the quality of apostles, and from its not being universally received in the first ages [centuries], we can answer, that St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, did not take the title of apostles at the head of all their letters, and that some Churches have doubted at first of the authenticity of other writings, which have afterwards been universally acknowledged as authentic and canonical.

====================

Gill: Jude (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JUDE

That this epistle was written by Jude, one of the twelve apostles of Christ, and not by Jude the fifteenth bishop of Jerusalem, who lived in the time of Trojan, a little before Bar Cocab, the false Messiah, as Grotius thought, is evident from his being called, in the epistle itself, the brother of James, and which is confirmed by all copies; and its agreement with the second epistle of Peter shows it to have been written about the same time, and upon the same occasion. As to Jude's not calling himself an apostle, but a servant of Jesus Christ, it may be observed, that the latter is much the same with the former, and the Apostle Paul sometimes uses them both, as in Rom 1:1, Tit 1:1, and sometimes neither, as 1Th 1:1, and sometimes only servant, as Jude does here, Php 1:1, though in some copies of the title of this epistle he is called "Jude the Apostle"; and as to Jude's making mention of the apostles as if he was later than they, and not of their number, Jud 1:17, it may be returned for answer to it, that the Apostle Peter expresses himself much in the same manner, 2Pe 3:2, where some copies, instead of "us the apostles", read "your apostles", 2Pe 3:2; moreover, Jude seems to cite a passage out of Peter, as Peter in the same chapter cites the Apostle Paul, which only shows agreement in their doctrine and writing; and at most it only follows from hence, that Jude wrote after some of the apostles, as Paul and Peter, who had foretold there would be mockers in the last time; and that Jude had lived to be a witness of the truth of what they had said; nor does he exclude himself from their number. And that this epistle is a genuine one appears from the majesty of its style, the truth of doctrine contained in it, and its agreement with the second epistle of Peter, and from the early reception of it in the churches. Eusebius ^a says, it was reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and was published in most churches; though he observes, that many of the ancients make no mention of it: but certain it is, that several of the ancient writers before him do make mention of it, and cite it as genuine, as Clemens Alexandrinus ^b, Tertullian ^c, and Origen ^d: and as for the prophecy of Enoch, cited in this epistle, it is not taken out of an apocryphal book, that bears that name, for the apostle makes no mention of any writing of his, but of a prophecy; and had he cited it out of that book, as it was truth, it can no more prejudice the authority of this epistle, than the citations made by the Apostle Paul out of the Heathen poets can affect his epistles: and whereas there is an account also given in this epistle of a dispute about the body of Moses, nowhere else to be met with, supposing it to be understood of his real body, of which Jud 1:9; this can be no more an objection to the genuineness of this epistle, than the mention of Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses, by the Apostle Paul, 2Ti 3:8, is an objection to an epistle of his, whose names are not to be met with in other parts of Scripture; but were what were known by tradition, as might be the case here. The epistle is called "catholic", or "general", because it is not written to any particular person or church, but to the saints in general, and it may be to the same persons that Peter wrote his; see 1Pe 1:1, and who seem to be chiefly the believing Jews; see Jud 1:5, though the Syriac version of Jud 1:1 reads, "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ"--ammel, "to the nations", or "Gentiles, called", &c. the design of the epistle to both is to exhort them to continue in the faith, and contend for it; and to describe false teachers, to point out their principles, practices, and dreadful end, that so they might shun and avoid them.

Gill: Jude 1 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JUDE 1

The writer of this epistle describes himself by his name, Jude; by his spiritual condition, "a servant of Christ"; and by his natural relation, "a brother of James"; and inscribes it to persons chosen of God, secured in Christ, and called by grace, Jud 1:1, whom he salutes, and wishes a multiplication of mercy, peace, and love unto, Jud 1:2, and then points at the subject matter of his epistle, "the common salvation"; and his view in writing it, which was to exhort them to contend earnestly for, the Gospel; which exhortation was necessary, since some reprobate and wicked men, abusers of the grace of God, and blasphemers of the person of Christ, had got in among them, Jud 1:3, and in order to deter them from following their pernicious ways, he lays before them various instances of divine vengeance on sinners; as the Israelites, whom God delivered out of Egypt, and yet destroyed them for their unbelief; the angels, who not content with their first estate, forsook their habitation, and are reserved in chains of darkness to the day of judgment; and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, and the adjacent cities, who for their uncleanness suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, as an example to others, Jud 1:5, in like manner, the apostle observes, these false teachers, who were filthy dreamers, defiled themselves with such sins, and also despised and spoke evil of civil magistrates, Jud 1:8, which sin of theirs is aggravated by Michael the archangel not railing at the devil, in a contention with him about the body of Moses, but gently reproving him; by speaking evil of what they were ignorant of, and by their brutish sensuality, in corrupting: themselves in things they had natural knowledge of, Jud 1:9, and both their sin and punishment are exemplified in the cases of Cain, Balaam, and Korah; being guilty of hatred of the brethren, of covetousness, and of contradiction, Jud 1:11, and by various metaphors are set forth their intemperance, hypocrisy, instability, unfruitfulness, pride, wrath, and lust, for whom the blackest darkness is reserved for ever, Jud 1:12, the certainty of which is proved from an ancient prophecy of Enoch, concerning the coming of Christ to judgment, when vengeance will be taken on those men for their ungodly deeds and hard speeches, Jud 1:14, who are further described by their murmurs and complaints; by their pride, respect of persons, and covetousness; by their scoffs, and walking after their own lusts, as had been foretold by the apostles of Christ; by separating themselves from the saints, and by their sensuality, and not having the Spirit of God, Jud 1:17, and the apostle having thus at large described these false teachers, by reason of whom the saints were in danger, directs them to the use of means by which they might be secured from them; such as building themselves up in their most holy faith, praying in the holy Ghost, keeping themselves in the love of God, and looking for the mercy of Christ unto eternal life, Jud 1:20, and he teaches them not only to be concerned for themselves, but for others also, who were in danger from these deceivers; to deal with some in a tender and compassionate way, with others more roughly, expressing an hatred to a filthy conversation, Jud 1:22, and then the epistle is concluded with a doxology, or an ascription of glory to the only wise God our Saviour, who is able to keep his people from falling into such pernicious principles and practices, and to present them faultless before his glorious presence with exceeding joy, Jud 1:24

College: Jude (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

One writer calls Jude "the most neglected book in the New Testament." One seldom hears sermons, Bible classes, or devotional readings from the book. Part of this neglect may be due to the brevity of the letter. Many Christians have trouble finding it tucked between 3 John and Revelation. It may be neglected because most of its content is also found in 2 Peter. The strangeness of the letter itself also explains its obscurity in the church. Jude quotes from books not found in the Bible. Even many of his biblical allusions are to lesser known Old Testament stories.

In spite of its strangeness, Jude has a powerful message for the contemporary church. In a culture that is increasingly apathetic or even antagonistic toward the Christian faith, in an era when pluralism and acceptance are the only ultimate virtues, we need to hear Jude's reminder that there are times the faith must be defended. In Jude's day as well as our own, that defense calls us to oppose false teaching, to live lives of faith and love, to pray in the Spirit, and to save those who falter.

AUTHORSHIP

The author calls himself "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James." Jude or Judas is a form of Judah, one of the sons of Jacob and the tribes of Israel. There are four men named Jude (or Judas) mentioned in the New Testament who might be the author of the letter.

1. Jude, the brother of Jesus. Mark 6:3 lists four brothers of Jesus, including James and Jude. For more on the brothers of Jesus, see the Introduction to James.

2. Jude, the apostle. In Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, he is called "Judas of James." The usual Greek usage (as reflected in most English versions including the NIV) is to translate this, "Judas son of James." If it means "brother of James," it might be a reference to the author of this letter. However, the author of Jude does not call himself an apostle and even quotes the apostles in a way that implies he is not of their number ( v. 17).

3. Judas Barsabbas. He is briefly mentioned in Acts 15:22. He may have been a co-worker of James in Jerusalem. If so, "brother of James" would mean Christian brother, not physical brother. Although possible, this use of "brother of" is unlikely.

4. Judas of Damascus. After his vision on the road, Saul stays with him in Damascus (Acts 9:11). We are not sure he is even a believer. Even if he is, he is too obscure a figure to write an authoritative letter to a church.

Besides these four, there are two other possibilities followed by certain scholars.

5. It is written by an unknown Jude, brother to an equally unknown James. Of course, this is possible but seems unlikely.

6. It is pseudonymous, that is, written by an anonymous writer who uses the name Jude to enhance the authority of his writing. Although this practice was known in the ancient world, particularly among students of famous philosophers, no proven pseudonymous letters have been found. The primary argument for pseudonymous authorship is that the Greek of Jude is too good to be written by a Palestinian peasant. However, there is some question as to the high literary quality of the letter; the vocabulary is advanced, but the grammar is fairly simple. More recent discoveries have also shown that first century Palestine was more heavily influenced by Hellenistic Greek culture than was previously thought. It was not out of the question for a resident of Nazareth to write good Greek.

A second argument for pseudonymous authorship is that certain passages in Jude sound as if they come from the late first or early second century, too late for the biblical brother of Jesus to have written them. For more, see the discussion below on the date of Jude.

Although one cannot be certain, it is most likely that the author is the brother of Jesus and of James. Until quite recently, most scholars held he was the author. The content of the letter is consistent with this position. The author is well respected, familiar with the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, and knows the teaching of Jesus.

DATE, OCCASION, SETTING

If Jude, the brother of Jesus, wrote the letter, then it must date somewhere between 55-80. If "brother of James" implies James was still alive, then it dates before 62.

Some think two passages in Jude point to a date later than the lifetime of the Lord's brother. Jude 3 speaks of the faith as a body of doctrine delivered to the saints, a situation (some say) that could not have existed before the end of the first century. However, Paul uses similar language when he writes, so it does not necessarily reflect a later time (see the discussion below on v. 3).

In the other passage, Jude urges his readers to "remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold" ( v. 17). The argument is that this implies the apostolic period was in the fairly distant past. However, the next verse reads, "They said to you . . . ," implying that Jude's readers had direct contact with the apostles. At best, the language is ambiguous and does not clearly indicate a late date.

The specific occasion for writing is to warn of false teachers who have crept into the church. It is impossible to identify these false teachers with any known heretical group in the early church. Some have suggested they follow an early form of Gnosticism. The early Christian leader Irenaeus (130-200) says Cain and Korah were heroes to some Gnostic groups, so perhaps Jude is refuting that position by using them as negative examples ( v. 11). Denigrating angels ( v. 8) and even Jesus ( v. 4) may have been characteristic of some Gnostics. However, our knowledge of early Gnosticism is quite limited, so we cannot be certain that Jude's opponents are Gnostic.

It is wiser to stay with Jude's own description of his opponents. They have misunderstood grace and perverted it into license ( v. 4). They are antinomian ("against law"). They believe they are so advanced spiritually (perhaps as evidenced by their dreams and visions, v. 8) that they no longer are subject to God's law. Thinking themselves free from all moral restraint ( v. 8), they pollute their bodies ( v. 8), care only for themselves ( v. 12), and end up like unreasoning animals ( v. 10). These specific charges indicate Jude is fighting actual false teachers who have infiltrated a congregation, and he is not simply talking of heretics in general. The false teachers he describes are similar to those in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy 1:6-7, 19; 4:1, 7; 6:3-5, 20; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:14, 16, 25; 3:1, 13; 4:3-4; Titus 1:10, 16; 3:9) and the Epistles of John (1John 1 John 2:18, 22, 26; 4:1; 2John 2 John 7; 3 John 9).

We have no clear indication of the location of Jude or of the church to whom he writes. Some scholars suggest a setting in Alexandria, Egypt; others, Syria or Palestine.

RELATION TO 2 PETER

Jude 4-16 and 2 Peter 2:1-18 are so similar that one must account for them in one of the following ways:

1. Coincidence. While possible, the extent of the similarity makes this unlikely. Of course, God could have inspired them both separately to write this way; but since inspiration is not dictation, one of the explanations below seems more likely.

2. They each independently use another document. If so, the document has not survived. Since almost all of Jude is similar to 2 Peter 2:1-18, then Jude would have added little of his own work to the document he copied. This is unlikely.

3. Jude adapted 2 Peter 2:1-18. If so, he would have shortened what Peter said. Usually, however, later writers expand on their sources.

4. Jude was written first, and 2 Peter 2:1-18 is an expansion of Jude's material to fit a different situation. Again, one cannot be certain, but this seems most likely.

Since there are so many parallels to 2 Peter 2:1-18 in Jude, the commentary will not refer to those passages in lists of cross-references. Instead, the reader is urged to read Jude with 2 Peter open beside it.

JUDE'S USE OF NON-BIBLICAL WRITINGS

Jude 1:9 refers to the story of Michael the archangel disputing with Satan over the body of Moses. This story is not found in the Old Testament but in a book called The Assumption of Moses written early in the first century. Jude 1:14-15 quotes directly from the Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch ), a work written by several authors in the second century B.C. These two books are part of what is called the pseudepigrapha, that is, writings attributed to but not actually written by famous persons of the Old Testament. Although other New Testament writers may have known these books and have been influenced by them, Jude alone quotes directly from one of them and identifies the quotation as a prophecy.

Through the centuries many Christians have been disturbed by the idea that Jude would quote from a non-biblical book. Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) and a few other early Christian writers argued that 1 Enoch was inspired since Jude quotes it as Scripture. Jerome (A.D. 342-420) tells us that others rejected the inspiration of Jude because he quotes Enoch. Both conclusions are based on the unwarranted assumption that Jude is quoting Enoch as inspired Scripture.

However, other New Testament writers (as well as Jewish authors) quote non-biblical sources because their words are true and valuable, not because they consider them inspired. Paul quotes from three Greek poets, Menander (1 Corinthians 15:33), Epimenedes, and Aratus (Acts 17:28). He introduces another quotation from Epimenedes by calling him a "prophet" (Titus 1:12). Obviously Paul did not think the writings of Epimenedes were inspired; Epimenedes was a "prophet" in the sense that the Cretans accepted him as such, and the particular statement Paul quoted ("Cretans are always liars . . .") was true.

In the same way, Jude may have had great respect for the Book of Enoch and have considered its prediction of the coming one as a true prophecy without accepting it as inspired Scripture (just as Christians today quote C.S. Lewis or other authors to make a point without claiming they are inspired). His references to The Assumption of Moses and to the Book of Enoch should not lessen our respect for the authority of Jude. He quotes these writings because, like Jude, they teach that God will ultimately judge false teachers who lead others astray.

LITERARY THEMES AND STRATEGIES

The central theme of Jude is judgment of false teachers. Jude is best understood as a Jewish-Christian apocalyptic writing. Apocalyptic literature focuses on the end of the world and final judgment. Jude's examples of judgment are drawn primarily from the Old Testament (Israel in the wilderness, Cain, Balaam, Korah) but also from other Jewish apocalyptic literature such as the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch . Jude follows a commentary pattern as he cites these past examples and then applies them to the false teachers of his day.

Literarily, Jude is fond of grouping three related items:

Called, loved, kept ( v. 1).

Mercy, peace, love ( v. 2).

Godless, change grace, deny Jesus ( v. 4)

Israel, angels, Sodom ( vv. 5-7).

Pollute, reject, slander ( v. 8).

Cain, Balaam, Korah ( v. 11).

Clouds, trees, waves ( vv. 12-13).

Faith, love, hope ( vv. 20-21).

Be merciful, snatch from fire, show mercy ( vv. 22-23).

Before all ages, now, forevermore ( v. 25)

He also contrasts his readers with the false teachers through the repeated use of two phrases: "dear friends" for his readers ( vv. 3, 17, 20), and "these men" or "certain men" for the false teachers ( vv. 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19).

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JUDE

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1983.

. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901.

Charles, J. Daryl. Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude. London: Associated University Presses, 1993.

Chester, Andrew, and Martin, Ralph P. The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Cranfield, C.E.B. I & II Peter and Jude. Torch Bible Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Elliott, John H. I-II Peter, Jude. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982.

Ellis, E. Earle. "Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Jude." In Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Green, Michael. The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Selected Studies from Jude," Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (1985), 142-151, 238-249, 355-366.

Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. Harper's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1969.

Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Kugelman, Richard. James & Jude . New Testament Message. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980.

Lucas, Dick and Green, Christopher. The Message of 2 Peter & Jude. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter. London: Macmillan, 1907.

Moffatt, James. The General Epistles: James, Peter, and Judas. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper and Brothers, n.d.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Osburn, Carroll D. "1 Enoch 80:2-8 (67:5-7) and Jude 12-13," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985), 296-303.

. "The Christological Use of I Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14,15," New Testament Studies 23 (1977), 334-341.

Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Sidebottom, E.M. James, Jude, 2 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.

Watson, Duane Frederick. Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Jude (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. ADDRESS AND GREETING - 1-2

II. REASON FOR WRITING - 3-4

III. JUDGMENT OF THE UNGODLY - 5-19

A. Three Biblical Examples of Ungodliness - 5-7

B. Application of Examples to Jude's Opponents - 8-10

C. Three Further Biblical Examples of Ungodliness - 11

D. Metaphors from Nature Applied to the Ungodly - 12-13

E. Enoch's Prophecy Against the Ungodly - 14-16

F. The Warning of the Apostles - 17-19

IV. A CALL TO FAITH, LOVE, AND MERCY - 20-23

V. DOXOLOGY - 24-25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV