Judges 1:1-2.—Salutation. Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who have received the divine calling, beloved of the Father, kept safe in Jesus Christ. May mercy, peace and love be richly poured out upon you!
1. . The same phrase is used by St. James in the Inscription to his epistle, also by St. Paul in Rom. and Phil. In 1 Pet. the phrase used is . ., in 2 Pet. . It is, I think, a mistake to translate by the word “slave,” the modern connotation of which is so different from that of the Greek word (cf.2 Corinthians 4:5). There is no opposition between and in the Christian’s willing service. It only becomes a in the opposed sense, when he ceases to love what is commanded and feels it as an external yoke.
. Cf.Titus 1:1 , . . See Introduction on the Author.
. On the readings see Introduction on the text. The easier reading of some MSS., for , is probably derived from 1 Corinthians 1:2, . . There is no precise parallel either for . or for . The preposition is constantly used to express the relation in which believers stand to Christ: they are incorporated in Him as the branches in the vine, as the living stones in the spiritual temple, as the members in the body of which He is the head. So here, “beloved as members of Christ, reflecting back his glorious image “would be a natural und easy conception. Lightfoot, commenting on Colossians 3:12, , , says that in the N.T. the last word “seems to be used always of the objects of God’s love,” but it is difficult to see the propriety of the phrase, ‘Brethren beloved by God in God”. is used of the objects of man’s love in Clem. Hom. ix. 5, , and the cognate is constantly used in the same sense (as below Judges 1:3), as well as in the sense of “beloved of God”. If, therefore, we are to retain the reading, I am disposed to interpret it as equivalent to , “beloved by us in the Father,” i.e., “beloved with . as children of God,” but I think that Hort is right in considering that has shifted its place in the text. See his Select Readings, p. 106, where it is suggested that should be omitted before and inserted before , giving the sense “to those who have been beloved by the Father, and who have been kept safe in Jesus from the temptations to which others have succumbed,” being followed by a dative of the agent, as in Nehemiah 13:26, .
is here the substantive of which and are predicated. We find the same use in Revelation 17:14 ( ) . . , in St. Paul’s epistles, as in Romans 1:6, , , 1 Corinthians 1:24, , ’ . We have many examples of the Divine calling in the Gospels, as in the case of the Apostles (Matthew 4:21, Mark 1:20) and in the parables of the Great Supper and the Labourers in the Vineyard. This idea of calling or election is derived from the O.T. See Hort’s n. on 1 Peter 1:1 : “Two great forms of election are spoken of in the O.T., the choosing of Israel, and the choosing of single Israelites, or bodies of Israelites, to perform certain functions for Israel.’ The calling and the choosing imply each other, the calling being the outward expression of the antecedent choosing, the act by which it begins to take effect. Both words emphatically mark the present state of the persons addressed as being due to the free agency of God.’ In Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 4:37) the choosing, by God is ascribed to His own love of Israel: the ground of it lay in Himself, not in Israel.’ As is the election of the ruler or priest within Israel for the sake of Israel, such is the election of Israel for the sake of the whole human race. Such also, still more clearly and emphatically, is the election of the new Israel.” For a similar use of the word “call” in Isaiah, cf. ch. Isaiah 48:12, Isaiah 43:1; Isaiah 43:7. The chief distinction between the the “calling” of the old and of the new dispensation is that the former is rather expressive of dignity (“called by the name of God”), the latter of invitation; but the former appears also in the N.T. in such phrases as James 2:7, and 1 Peter 2:9, , ’ . The reason for St. Jude’s here characterising the called as beloved and kept, is because he has in his mind others who had been called, but had gone astray and incurred the wrath of God.
Judges 1:2. For the Salutation see my note on , James 1:1, and Hort’s excellent note on 1 Peter 1:2, ’ . We find and joined in Galatians 6:16, and with the addition of in 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, 2 John 1:3. The mercy of God is the ground of peace, which is perfected in the feeling of God’s love towards them. The verb occurs in the Salutation both of 1 Peter and 2 Peter and in Daniel 6:25 (in the letter of Darius), , cf.1 Thessalonians 3:12, . (= the love of God) occurs also in the final salutation of 2 Cor. . , and in Eph. . . Cf.1 John 3:1.), , where Westcott’s n. is “The Divine love is infused into them, so that it is their own, and becomes in them the source of a divine life (Romans 13:10). In virtue of this gift they are inspired with a love which is like the love of God, and by this they truly claim the title of children of God as partakers in His nature, 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:19.” The same salutation is used in the letter of the Smyrnaeans (c. 156 A.D.) giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, . . . The thought of and recurs again in Judges 1:21.
Judges 1:3. occurs in Judges 1:17; Judges 1:20, also in 2 Peter 3:1; 2 Peter 3:8; 2 Peter 3:14; 2 Peter 3:17, 1 Peter 2:11; 1 Peter 4:12 and James. It is common in the Epistles of John and of Paul, sometimes with attached, as in 1 Corinthians 10:14, Philippians 2:12, and is often joined to , especially in James. The of Judges 1:2 leads on to the here. They are themselves because the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts.
. For , see my n. on James 1:2, and cf.2 Peter 1:5, , Judges 1:15, , also Isocr. Orat. v. p. 91 b, , Plato, Euthyd. 304 e, . Jude was busy on another subject, when he received the news of a fresh danger to the Church, which he felt it his duty to meet at once. Whether he lived to carry out his earlier design, and whether it was of the nature of a treatise or of an epistle, we know not. It is noteworthy that there is a similar allusion in 2 Peter 3:1 to an earlier letter now lost. Compare Barn. iv. 9, ’ .
. Cf.Titus 1:4, , Ign. Ephesians 1., with Lightfoot’s n., Jos. Ant. 10. 1. 3 (Hezekiah besought Isaiah to offer sacrifice) . Bede explains as follows: “omnium electorum communis est salus, fides, et dilectio Christi”. Jude puts on one side the address he was preparing on the main principles of Christianity (probably we may take Judges 1:20-21 as a sample of what this would have been) and turns to the special evil which was then threatening the Church.
. Cf.Luke 14:18, , Hebrews 7:27, al., also Plut. CatoMi. 24, . There is a similar combination of and in 3 John 1:13. The aor. , contrasted with the preceding pres. , implies that the new epistle had to be written at once and could not be prepared for at leisure, like the one he had previously contemplated. It was no welcome task: “necessity was laid upon him”.
. “To contend for the faith,” almost equivalent to the in Sirach 4:28, see 1 Timothy 6:12, , and , Colossians 1:29. We may compare , , Romans 2:17 and Clem. Strom, iii., p. 553, . It is possible (as is shown by the following examples) for spiritual blessings, once given, to be lost, unless we use every effort to maintain them. The redemption from Egypt was a fact, as baptism into the name of Christ is a fact, but, unless it is borne in mind and acted upon, the fact loses its efficacy.
. The word here is not used in its primary sense of a subjective feeling of trust or belief, but in the secondary sense of the thing believed, the Truth or the Gospel, as in Judges 1:20 below, Galatians 1:23, , also Galatians 3:23, Philippians 1:27, , where see Lightfoot, Acts 6:7. In the same way is used in a concrete sense for the object or ground of hope (as in Colossians 1:5, , 1 Timothy 1:1, , Titus 2:13, ), and for the object of fear, Romans 13:3, 1 Peter 3:14.
. Used here in its classical sense “once for all,” as below Judges 1:5, and in Hebrews 6:4, , Hebrews 9:26-27; Hebrews 10:2, 1 Peter 3:18. This excludes the novelties of the Libertines, cf.Galatians 1:9. The later sense “on one occasion” is found in 2 Corinthians 11:25, , 1 Thessalonians 2:18, .
. Cf. Philo M. i. 387, . The Christian tradition is constantly referred to by the Fathers, as by Clem. Al. Str. vii. where we read of (p. 845), . (p. 890), . (p. 896), . (p. 900), (p. 901), and even in the N.T. as in 1 Corinthians 11:2, , 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Timothy 6:20. . For an account of the gradual formation of the Creed, see A. E. Burn’s Introduction to the Creeds, ch. 2., 1899, and compare the comment in my larger edition, p. 61 f.
. Used generally of Christians who were consecrated and called to be holy, as in 1 Corinthians 1:2, Philippians 1:1, where see Lightfoot. The word contains an appeal to the brethren to stand fast against the teaching and practice of the Libertines.
Judges 1:3-4.—Reasons for Writing. He had been intending to write to them on that which is the common interest of all Christians, salvation through Christ, but was compelled to abandon his intention by news which had reached him of a special danger* threatening the Gospel once for all delivered to the Church. His duty now was to stir up the faithful to defend their faith against insidious assaults, long ago foretold in ancient prophecy, of impious men who should change the doctrine of God’s free grace into an excuse for licentiousness, and deny the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ.
* For this see the Introduction on Early Heresies.
Judges 1:4. . For this form which is found in  and adopted by WH, Veitch cites in Hippocr. 1. 601, and compares , . The aor. is here used with the perfect force, as in Judges 1:11 , etc. cf. Blass, Gr. p. 199, my edition of St. James, p. 202. and Dr. Weymouth there cited. The verb occurs in Deinades 178, , Clem. Al. p. 659 , D. Laert. ii. 142. , Plut. M. p. 216 B, , , other examples in Wetst. The noun occurs in Barn. ii. 10, iv. 9, , Clem. Al. p. 189, . Similar compounds are in 2 Peter 1:5, in 2 Peter 2:1, in Galatians 2:4, , Romans 5:20, 2 Maccabees 8:1 , so , , . The earliest prophecy of such seducers comes from the lips of Jesus Himself, Matthew 7:15, , , , cf.Acts 20:29-30, and Introduction on the Early Heresies in the larger edition.
 Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
. “Designated of old for this judgment.” Cf.2 Peter 2:3, . The word precludes the supposition that the second epistle of Peter can be referred to. The allusion is to the book of Enoch quoted in Judges 1:14-15. In Judges 1:18 below the same warning is said to have been given by the Apostles. The phrase . is in apposition to , cf.Galatians 1:7 with Lightfoot’s n., Luke 18:9, . For ., cf.Romans 15:4, . The word is intended to show that they are already doomed to punishment as enemies of God. As such they are to be shunned by the faithful, but not to be feared, because, dangerous as they may seem, they cannot alter the Divine purpose. Dr. Chase compares Hort’s interesting note on 1 Peter 2:8, . By “this” Spitta understands “that judgment which I am now about to declare,” i.e., the condemnation contained in the word used by some ancient writer. Zahn however remarks that usually refers to what precedes, and he would take here (with Hofmann) as referring to . Better than this logical reference to some preceding or succeeding word is, I think, Bengel’s explanation “the now impending judgment,” Apostolo iam quasi cernente pœnam.
 Zahn, it is true, following Schott and others, argues in favour of this reference, holding that may be equivalent to “lately”; and the word is of course very elastic in meaning; but unless the contrast makes it clear that the reference is to a recent past, I think we are bound to assign to the word its usual force, especially here, where it stands first, giving the tone as it were to what follows, and is further confirmed and explained by in Judges 1:14.
. This word may be almost said to give the keynote to the Epistle (cf.Judges 1:15; Judges 1:18) as it does to the Book of Enoch.
. With this we may compare 1 Peter 2:16, , 2 Peter 2:19, , 2 Peter 3:16. , Romans 3:1-2; Romans 3:5-8 (If man is justified by free grace and not by works, then works are unnecessary), Romans 6:1; Romans 6:15; Romans 8:21, 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23 f., John 8:32-36, Galatians 5:13, · . For see Galatians 1:6, for 2 Peter 2:2, , 2 Peter 2:7; 2 Peter 2:18; 1 Peter 4:3, and Lightfoot on Galatians 5:19, “A man may be and hide his sin: he does not become until he shocks public decency. In classical Greek the word generally signifies insolence or violence towards another.’ In the later language the prominent idea is sensuality ’ cf. Polyb. xxxvi. 2, . Thus it has much the same range of meaning as ”. On the meaning of see Robinson, Ephes. p. 221 f. The form used elsewhere in the N.T., except in Acts 24:27.
. So 2 Peter 2:1, . On the denial of God and Christ see 1 John 2:22, , , Titus 1:16, , , Matthew 10:33, , , Matthew 26:70 (Peter’s denial). Such denial is one of the sins noticed in the book of Enoch, xxxviii. 2: “When the Righteous One shall appear ’ where will be the dwelling of the sinners and where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits? “Ib. xli. 2, xlv. 2, xlvi. 7, xlviii. 10: “They will fall and not rise again ’ for they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed”.
Two questions have been raised as to the meaning of the text, (1) is . to be understood of the Son, (2) what is the force of ? The objection to understanding of our Lord is that in every other passage in the N.T., where occurs, except in 2 Peter 2:1 (on which see n.), it is spoken of God the Father; that, this being the case, it is difficult to understand how Christ can be called . It seems to me a forced explanation to say that the phrase has reference only to other earthly masters. No Jew could use it in this connexion without thinking of the one Master in heaven. Again is elsewhere used of the Father only, as in John 5:44, , John 17:3, Romans 16:27, , 1 Timothy 1:17, ’ . , 1 Timothy 6:15-16, . , and by Jude himself, below 25, . ., . Wetst. quotes several passages in which Josephus speaks of God as . On the other hand, the phrase, so taken seems to contradict the general rule that, where two nouns, denoting attributes, are joined by , if the article is prefixed to the first noun only, the second noun will then be an attribute of the same subject. In the present case, however, the second noun ( ) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article, see Winer, pp. 147–163. A similar doubtful case is found in Titus 2:13, . . , where also I should take to refer to the Father. Other examples of the same kind are Ephesians 5:5, (where Alf. notes “We cannot safely say here that the same Person is intended by . . merely on account of the omission of the art.; for (1) any introduction of such a prediction regarding Christ would here be manifestly out of place, (2) is so frequently anarthrous that it is not safe to ground any such inference on its use here),” 2 Thessalonians 1:12, ; 1 Timothy 5:21 (cf.2 Timothy 4:1), , which Chrysostom explains ; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:4 , where see my n. The denial of the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ may be implicit, shown by their coquet, though not asserted in word, as in Titus 1:16; but it is more naturally taken as explicit, as in 1 John 2:22, where Westcott notes that a common gnostic theory was that “ ‘the Aeon Christ’ descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism and left Him before His passion. Those who held such a doctrine denied ’ the union of the divine and human in one Person ’ and this denial involves the loss of the Father, not only because the ideas of sonship and fatherhood are correlative, but because ’ it is only in the Son that we have the [full] revelation of God as Father.” The phrase might also refer to the heresy attributed to Cerinthus by Hippolytus (Haer. vii. 33, x. 21) , and Irenæus Haer. i. 26. See Introduction on Early Heresies in the large edition.
Judges 1:5. , .Cf.2 Peter 1:12, , 2 Peter 1:13, , 2 Peter 3:1, , Romans 15:14, , ’ . The word justifies : they only need to be reminded of truths already known, so that it is unnecessary to write at length. The repeated contrasts the readers with the libertines of the former verse. The words in themselves might be taken ironically of persons professing (like the Corinthians) to “know all things,” but the broad distinction maintained throughout the epistle between and (the Libertines) forbids such an interpretation. If we read with some MSS., it suggests something of anxiety and upbraiding, which may be compared with the tone of St. Paul in writing to the Galatians. See, however, the following note for the position of . Instead of some MSS., have . The former finds some support in Enoch i. 2, “I heard everything from the angels,” xxv. 2, “I should like to know about everything,” Secrets of En. xl. 1, 2, “I know all things from the lips of the Lord ’ I know all things and have written all things in the books,” lxi. 2 (quoted by Chase in Dict. of the Bible). It should probably be understood of all that follows, including the historical allusions, implying that those addressed were familiar not only with the O.T. but with rabbinical traditions: so Estius “omnia de quibus volo vos commonere”. Bede’s note is “omnia videlicet arcana fidei scientes et non opus habentes recentia quasi sanctiora a novis audire magistris”. In what follows he takes with , “ita clamantes ad se de afflictione Aegyptia primo salvavit humiles, ut secundo murmurantes contra se in eremo prosterneret superbos ’ Meminerimus ilium sic per aquas baptismi salvare credentes, ut etiam post baptismum humilem in nobis requirat vitam.”
 On the readings see Introduction.
, , [ ] .] For text, see Introduction on Readings. Clement in his Adumbrationes gives the paraphrase “Quoniam Dominus Deus semel populum de terra Aegypti liberans deinceps eos qui non crediderunt perdidit”.
has given rise to much discussion. According to the reading I have adopted, it contrasts the preceding saving with the following destruction. The deliverance from Egypt was the creation of a people once for all, but yet it was followed by the destruction of the unbelieving portion of the people, i.e. by all but Caleb and Joshua (Numbers 14:27; Numbers 14:37). So in 1 Corinthians 10. we have the privileges of Israel allowed, and yet all was in vain because of their unbelief. There seems less force in the connection of with : would have been more suitable. For the opposition to , cf.Hebrews 9:28, , Theoph. Autol. ii. 26, , ’ , Liban. ap. Wetst. , .
I am inclined to think that the article before is an intrusion, as it seems to be before in Judges 1:12. Omitting it, we can take with , getting the sense: “In the 1st case of unbelief (in Egypt)  salvation followed; in the 2nd (in the wilderness) destruction,” lit. “when they, a second time failed to believe, He destroyed them”. If this was the original reading, it is easy to understand the insertion of as facilitating the plural construction after . We may compare the solemn utterance in Hebrews 10:26, , and the belief, apparently based upon it, in the early Church as to sin after baptism.
 Cf. Exodus 2:14; Exodus 4:1; Exodus 5:21; Exodus 6:9; Exodus 14:11-12.
Judges 1:5-13. Illustrations of Sin and Judgment Derived from History and from Nature. The judgment impending Over these men is borne witness to by well-known facts of the past, and may be illustrated from the phenomena of nature. God showed His mercy in delivering the Israelites from Egypt, but that was no guarantee against their destruction in the wilderness when they again sinned by unbelief. The angels were blessed beyond all other creatures, but when they proved unfaithful to their trust they were imprisoned in darkness, awaiting there the judgment of the great day. The men of Sodom (lived in a land of great fertility, they had received some knowledge of God through the presence and teaching of Lot, they had been lately rescued from captivity by Abraham, yet they) followed the sinful example of the angels, and their land is still a prey to the fire, bearing witness to the eternal punishment of sin. In spite of these warnings the heretics, who are now finding their way into the Church, persist in their wild hallucinations, giving themselves up to the lusts of the flesh, despising authority, and railing at angelic dignities. They might have been taught better by the example of the archangel Michael, of whom we are told that, when disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, he uttered no word of railing, but made his appeal to God. These men however rail at that which is beyond their knowledge, while they surrender themselves like brute beasts to the guidance of their appetites, and thus bring about their own destruction, following in the wake of impious Cain, of covetous Balaam, and rebellious Korah. When they take part in your love-feasts they cause the shipwreck of the weak by their wantonness and irreverence. In greatness of profession and smallness of performance they resemble clouds driven by the wind which give no rain; or trees in autumn on which one looks in vain for fruit, and which are only useful for fuel. By their confident speaking and brazen assurance they seem to carry all before the; yet like the waves bursting on the shore, the deposit they leave is only their own shame. Or we might compare them to meteors which shine for a moment and are then extinguished for ever.
Judges 1:6. ’ ’ .] Cf. Clem. Al. Adumbr. “Angelos qui non servaverunt proprium principatum, scilicet quem acceperunt secundum profectum.” This of course supplies an even more striking instance of the possibility of falling away from grace, cf. Bede, “Qui angelis peccantibus non pepercit, nee hominibus parcet super-bientibus, sed et hos quoque cum suum principatum non servaverint, quo per gratiam adoptionis filii Dei effecti sunt, sed reliquerint suum domicilium, id est, Ecclesiae unitatem ’ damnabit”. On the Fall of the Angels see Introduction and the parallel passages in 2 Peter 2:4, and in Enoch, chapters 6–10.
.] Used of office and dignity, as in Genesis 40:21 of the chief butler: here perhaps of the office of Watcher, though Spitta takes it more generally of the sovereignty belonging to their abode in heaven = in Clem. Al. 650 P. The term is used of the evil angels themselves in Ephesians 6:12. Cf. Enoch xii. 4, of the Watchers (angels) who have abandoned the high heaven and the holy eternal place and defiled themselves with women, ib. xv. 3. Philo says of the fallen angels (M. i. p. 268), , , . So Just. MApol. ii. 5, with Otto’s n.
. Codex Ruber (sæc. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives its name from the colour of the ink.
. Cf.2 Corinthians 5:2, . , and the quotation from Enoch in the last n. [For , cf. Enoch xv. 7 (the message of Enoch to the Watchers) “the spiritual have their dwelling in heaven” ’ . Chase.]
. Cf.2 Peter 2:4 , 2 Peter 2:9, , 2 Peter 3:7, ’ , Joel 2:31, ’ Revelation 6:17, , Revelation 16:14, . Enoch 10:5, (Azazel) , , Enoch 10:12, ’ , Enoch 12:11 (Gr. in Charles’ App.) , ib. liv. 6, note on xlv. 1. So 1 Corinthians 1:8, 2 Peter 3:10al., 2 Thessalonians 1:10. On see En. liv. 3–5, “I saw how they made iron chains of immeasurable weight, and I asked for whom they were prepared, and he said unto me ‘These are prepared far the hosts of Azazel’.” cf. (Wisdom of Solomon 17:2) of the plague of darkness.
 Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
. The chains are called “everlasting,” but they are only used for a temporary purpose, to keep them for the final judgment. It seems to be here synonymous with in Judges 1:7. So too in the only other passages in which it occurs in the Bible, Wisdom of Solomon 7:26, , and Romans 1:20, .
Judges 1:7. . The 3rd example of Divine judgment differs from the two others, as it tells only of the punishment, not of the fall from grace. Hence the difference of connexion .’ . Cf.2 Peter 2:6, . The destruction was not limited to these two cities, but extended to all the neighbouring country (Genesis 19:25, called in Wisdom of Solomon 10:6), including the towns of Admah and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23, Hosea 11:8). Zoar was spared at the request of Lot.
. For the adverbial acc., cf.Matthew 23:37, , 2 Maccabees 15:39, ’ , , Luc. Catapl. 6 . “Like them.” i.e. the fallen angels. The two judgments are similarly joined in Test. Nepht. 3, . , . Others understand of the libertines who are subsequently referred to as (Judges 1:8; Judges 1:10; Judges 1:12; Judges 1:16; Judges 1:19); but the beginning of Judges 1:8 ( ) seems to distinguish between them and the preceding. The verb . occurs in Genesis 38:24 of Tamar, Exodus 34:15-16, ( ) , Leviticus 17:7, Hosea 4:12, Ezekiel 16:26; Ezekiel 16:28; Ezekiel 16:33.
. In the case of the angels the forbidden flesh (lit. “other than that appointed by God”) refers to the intercourse with women; in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use (Romans 1:27), what Philo calls (de Gig. M i. p. 267), cf.Exodus 30:9. . For the post-classical phrase cf.2 Peter 2:10, , Deuteronomy 4:3, Jeremiah 2:2-3.
. Cf. Enoch lxvii. 12, “this judgment wherewith the angels are judged is a testimony for the kings and the mighty,” 2 Peter 2:6, , 1 Corinthians 10:6; 1 Corinthians 10:11 , Hebrews 4:11 . The present aspect of the Lacus Asphaltites was a conspicuous image of the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for Satan and his followers, Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10; Revelation 21:8. It is questioned whether is governed by or . If by , then the burning of Sodom is itself spoken of as still going on (eternal), and this is in accordance with Jewish belief as recorded in Wisdom of Solomon 10:7 ( ) , Philo (De Abr. M. ii. xxi.), . . , , ib.V. Moys. M. ii. p. 143. Some disallow this sense of and think that it can only be used of hell-fire, as in 4 Maccabees 12:12 (the words of the martyr contrasting the fires of present torture with the eternal flames awaiting the persecutor), , . For an examination of the word see Jukes, Restitution of all Things, p. 67 n. and cf.Jeremiah 23:39-40, Ezekiel 16:53; Ezekiel 16:55 (on the restoration of Sodom), Ezekiel 47:1-12 (a prophecy of the removal of the curse of the Dead Sea and its borders), Enoch, x. 5 and 12, where the of the former verse is equivalent to seventy generations in the latter, also Ezekiel 47:10 where is reckoned at 500 years. As the meaning of is made clear by the following participial clause, it seems unnecessary to take it with in the sense of “an example or type of eternal fire,” which would escape the difficulty connected with , but leaves (for which cf. Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 8, 2 Maccabees 4:48) a somewhat otiose appendage. In the book of Enoch (lxvii. 4 foll.) the angels who sinned are said to be imprisoned in a burning valley (Hinnom, ch. 27) in which there was a great swelling of waters, accompanied by a smell of sulphur; and “that valley of the angels burned continually under the earth”. Charles notes on this that “the Gehenna valley here includes the adjacent country down to the Dead Sea. A subterranean fire was believed to exist under the Gehenna valley.”
Judges 1:8. . Notwithstanding these warnings the libertines go on in similar courses.
Compare Acts 2:17 (a quotation from Joel 2:28), , of those that see visions: and so Spitta (holding that Jude copied from 2 Peter), would render it here, prefixing the article to make it correspond with the and of 2 Peter 2:1. Those who take the opposite view (viz. that 2 Peter was copied from Jude) will see nothing to justify the article. The word is used by Isaiah 56:10 in connexion with the words , (see Judges 1:10 below), , which Delitsch explains “instead of watching and praying to see divine revelations for the benefit of the people, they are lovers of ease talkers in their sleep.
Bengel explains “Hominum mere naturalium indoles graphice admodum descripta est. Somnians multa videre, audire, etc. sibi videtur.” And so Chase “they live in an unreal world of their own inflated imaginations,” comparing the conjectural reading of Colossians 2:18, . This accords with Judges 1:10: in their delusion and their blindness they take the real for the unreal, and the unreal for the real. The verb is used both in the active and middle by Aristotle, Somm. i. 1, , ; Probl. 30, 14, 2, , , , cf. Artem. Oneir, i. 1. Some interpret of polluting dreams (cf. Leviticus 15); but the word is evidently intended to have a larger scope, covering not merely but and . We must also interpret here by the of Judges 1:4, the and of Judges 1:7. This wide sense appears in Titus 1:15, , .
, . On first reading one is inclined to take the words and simply as abstractions. The result of indulgence in degrading lusts is the loss of reverence, the inability to recognise true greatness and due degrees of honour. This would agree with the description of the libertines as sharing in the of Korah, as , as uttering hard speeches against God. When we examine however the use of the word and the patristic comments, and when we consider the reference to the archangel’s behaviour towards Satan, and the further explanation in Judges 1:10, where the of Judges 1:8 is represented by , and the phrase , by , we seem to require a more pointed and definite meaning, not simply “majesty,” but “the divine majesty,” not simply “dignities,” but “the angelic orders”. Cf.2 Peter 2:10, Ephesians 1:21 (having raised him from the dead and set him on his right hand) , Colossians 1:16, , , , where Lightfoot considers that the words are intended to be taken in their widest sense, including bad and good angels, as well as earthly dignities. In our text, however, it would seem that the word should be understood as expressing the attribute of the true , cf. Didache, iv. 1 (honour him who speaks the word of God), , , , Herm. Sim, Judges 1:6; Judges 1:1, , . The verb has God or Christ for its object in Luke 10:16, John 12:48, 1 Thessalonians 4:8, etc. We have then to consider how it can be said that the libertines ( ) “despise authority” in like manner to the above-mentioned offenders. For the former we may refer to Judges 1:4, , for the latter to the contempt shown by the Israelites towards the commandments of God. So the desertion of their appointed station and abode by the angels showed their disregard for the divine ordinance, and the behaviour of the men of Sodom combined with the vilest lusts an impious irreverence towards God’s representatives, the angels (Genesis 19:5). Cf. Joseph. Ant. i. 11. 2, , and Test. Aser. 7, where the sin of Sodom is expressly stated to have been their behaviour towards the angels, .
. Cf.2 Peter 2:10, . The only other passage in the N.T. in which the plural occurs is 1 Peter 1:11, where the sense is different. Dr. Bigg compares Exodus 15:11, , ; ; , . Clement’s interpretation of this and the preceding clause is as follows: (Adumbr. 1008) “dominationem spernunt, hoc est solum dominum qui vere dominus noster est, Jesus Christus ’ majestatem blasphemant, hoc est angelos”. The word in the singular is used for the Shekinah, see my note on James 2:1. This suggests that Clement may be right in supposing the plural to be used for the angels, who are, as it were, separate rays of that glory. Compare Philo’s use of the name for the angels as contrasted with the divine . In Philo, Monarch, ii. p. 18 the divine , is said to consist of the host of angels, . See Test. Judges 1:25, , , , also Luke 9:26, where it is said that “the Son of Man will come in His own glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels”. Ewald, Hist. Isr. tr. vol. viii. p. 142, explains of the true Deity, whom they practically deny by their dual God; as the angels, whom they blaspheme by supposing that they had created the world in opposition to the will of the true God, whereas Michael himself submitted everything to Him. This last clause would then be an appendage to the preceding, with special reference to the case of the Sodomites (cf.John 13:20). There may also be some allusion to the teaching or practice of the libertines. If we compare the mysterious reference in 1 Corinthians 11:10, , which is explained by Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. 7) as spoken of the fallen angels mentioned by Jude, “propter angelos, scilicet quos legimus a Deo et caelo excidisse ob concupiscentiam feminarum,” we might suppose the , of which the libertines were guilty, to consist in a denial or non-recognition of the presence of good angels in their worship, or of the possibility of their own becoming ; or they may have scoffed at the warnings against the assaults of the devil, or even at the very idea of “spiritual wickedness in high places”. So understood, it prepares us for the strange story of the next verse.
 There is much said of the glory of the angels in Asc. Isaiae, pp. 47, 49 f ad. Charles.
Judges 1:9. . The term . occurs in the N.T. only here and in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. The names of seven archangels are given in Enoch. The story here narrated is taken from the apocryphal Assumptio Mosis, as we learn from Clem. Adumbr. in Ep. Judae, and Orig. De Princ. iii. 2, 1. Didymus (In Epist. Judae Enarratio) says that some doubted the canonicity of the Epistle because of this quotation from an apocryphal book. In Cramer’s Catena on this passage (p. 163) we read , , , , , . Charles in his edition of the Assumption thus summarises the fragments dealing with the funeral of Moses: (1) Michael is commissioned to bury Moses, (2) Satan opposes his burial on two grounds: (a) he claims to be the lord of matter (hence the body should be handed over to him). To this claim Michael rejoins, “The Lord rebuke thee, for it was God’s spirit which created the world and all mankind”. (b) He brings the charge of murder against Moses (the answer to this is wanting). The story is based upon Deuteronomy 34:6 (R.V.), “he buried him (mg. he was buried) in the valley ’ but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day”. Compare the vain search for Elijah (2 Kings 2:16-17). Further details in Josephus (Ant. 4:8, 48), . , , Philo i. p. 165, and Clem. Al. (Str. vi. § 132, p. 807) where it is said that Caleb and Joshua witnessed the assumption of Moses to heaven, while his body was buried in the clefts of the mountain. See comment in the larger edition, pp. 74–76.
. Here used in the sense of “disputing,” as in Jeremiah 15:10, , Joel 3:2, Acts 11:2. See my note on James 1:6 and below Judges 1:22.
. Cf.Mark 9:34, , .
. I take to be gen. qualitatis, expressed by the adjective in 2 Peter: see below on Judges 1:18, James 1:25, , 2 Peter 2:4 , 2 Peter 3:6, , also 2 Peter 2:1, , 2 Peter 2:10, . For see Plat. Legg. ix. 856 , ib. 943, . The word occurs elsewhere in N.T. only in Romans 3:5. Field (On Translation of N.T. p. 244) compares Acts 25:18 , Diod. xvi. 29, , ib. xx. 10, , xx. 62, , tom. x. p. 171 ed. Bip. , and translates “durst not bring against him an accusation of blasphemy”; but surely that is just what he does in appealing to God. Besides such a statement would be altogether beside the point. The verse is introduced to show the guilt attached to speaking evil of dignities, i.e. of angels. If Michael abstained from speaking evil even of a fallen angel, this is appropriate; not so, if he simply abstained from charging the devil with speaking evil of Moses.
, like , has the two meanings of judgment and of accusation, cf. Lycurg. 31 where are distinguished from .
. These words occur in the vision of Zechariah (2 Peter 3:1-10) where the angel of the Lord replies to the charges of Satan against the high priest Joshua with the words , , , . They were no doubt inserted as appropriate by the author of the Ass. Mos. in his account of the controversy at the grave of Moses. We may compare Matthew 17:18, .
Judges 1:10. . The libertines do the contrary of what we are told of the respect shown by the angel even towards Satan: they speak evil of that spiritual world, those spiritual beings, of which they know nothing, cf.2 Peter 2:12. The common verb . shows that the of Judges 1:8 are identical with here. For the blindness of the carnal mind to all higher wisdom cf.1 Corinthians 2:7-16, a passage linked with our epistle by the distinction between the and and by the words , · . See too John 8:19, 1 Timothy 6:4, . For the form see my ed. of St. James, p. 183.
. This stands for in Judges 1:8 and is explained by in Judges 1:4, in Judges 1:7, in Judges 1:8, in Judges 1:16.
, “by instinct,” so Dion. L. x. 137, . Alford cites Xen. Cyrop. ii. 3, 9, , .
. The natural antithesis here would have been “these things they admire and delight in”. For this Jude substitutes by a stern irony “these things are their ruin”. Cf.Philippians 3:19, where speaking of the enemies of the Cross the apostle says: , , , Ephesians 4:22, ’ .
Judges 1:11. , . For the use of the aorist see note on Judges 1:4. : for the phrase cf. Blass, Gr. p. 119, and 2 Peter 2:15, . The phrase , so common in Enoch, especially in cc. 94 to 100, and in the Gospels and Apocalypse, occurs in the epistles only here and in 1 Corinthians 9:16. The woe is grounded on the fate which awaits those who walk in the steps of Cain, Balaam and Korah. In 2 Peter Balaam is the only one referred to of the three leaders of wickedness here named by Jude. Cain, with Philo, is the type of selfishness (. 1 p. 206), (quoted by Schneckenb. p. 221); he is named as a type of jealous hate in 1 John 3:2; 1 John 3:12. . · ; , , of unbelief in Hebrews 11:4, , cf. Philo, De Agric. 1 M. 300 f., and Targ. Jer. on Genesis 4:7, cited by Schneckenburger, in which Cain is represented as saying “non est judicium, nec judex, nec est aliud saeculum, nee dabitur merces bona justis, nec ultio sumetur de improbis,” etc. There seems no reason why we should not regard Cain here as symbolising the absence both of faith and of love, cf.1 John 3:23. Euthym. Zig. gives an allegorical explanation, , . Cain and Korah are said to have been objects of special reverence with a section of the Ophite heresy, which appears to have been a development of the Nicolaitans (Epiphan. Pan. i. 3, 37, 1, ). They held that the Creator was evil, that the serpent represented the divine Wisdom, that Cain and his successors were champions of right (Epiphan. ib. 38, 1, , and boast themselves to be of kin to Cain, , see too Iren. i. 51, Clem. Str. vii. § 108.)
 Codex Ruber (sæc. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives its name from the colour of the ink.
. Every word in this clause is open to question. The passive of , to “pour out,” is used to express either the onward sweeping movement of a great crowd, or the surrender to an overpowering motive on the part of an individual = effusi sunt, as in Sirach 37:29, , Test. Reub. 1, , Clem. Al. Str. ii. p. 491, , , , Plut. V. Ant. 21, . Such an interpretation seems not quite consistent with , which implies cool self-interest. That covetousness, , was a common motive with false teachers is often implied or asserted by St. Paul and St. Peter in the passages quoted below: and this, we know, was the case with Balaam; but would it be correct to say either of him or of his followers, here condemned by St. Jude, that they ran greedily into (or “in”) error for reward? Perhaps we should understand it rather of a headstrong will breaking down all obstacles, refusing to listen to reason or expostulation, as Balaam holds to his purpose in spite of the divine opposition manifested in such diverse ways. Then comes the difficulty, how are we to understand the dative , and what is the reference in the word? Should we take as equivalent to (Winer, p. 268)? This is the interpretation given by Lucifer p. 219, “vae illis quoniam in seductionem B. mercede effusi sunt,” but it is a rare use of the dative, and it seems more natural to explain by the preceding (dative of the means or manner), which is used in the same collocation in 2 Peter 2:15. What then are we to understand by “they were hurried along on the line of Balaam’s error”? What was his error? From Numbers 22:1-41; Numbers 25:1-3; Numbers 31:16, Nehemiah 13:2, , Jos. Ant. iv. 6, 6, we learn that B was induced by Balak’s bribe to act against his own convictions and eventually to tempt Israel to fornication. This then is the error or seduction by which he leads them astray. In rabbinical literature Balaam is a sort of type of false teachers (Pirke Aboth, Judges 1:19, with Taylor’s n.). Some suppose the name Nicolaitan (Revelation 2:6) to be formed from the Greek equivalent to Balaam = “corrupter of the people”; see however the passages quoted from Clem. Al. in the Introduction on Early Heresies. In Revelation 2:14 we read of some in Pergamum that held the teaching of Balaam, , . There is no hint to suggest that the innovators, of whom Jude speaks, favoured idolatry, but they may have prided themselves on their enlightenment in disregarding the rule of the Apostolic Council as to the use of meats offered to idols (cf. 1 Corinthians 8), and perhaps in burning incense in honour of the Emperor, see Ramsay, Expositor for 1904, p. 409, and July, pp. 43–60. On the other hand, Jude continually charges them with moral laxity, and we may suppose that this was combined with claims to prophetic power, and with the covetousness which is often ascribed to the false teachers of the early Church, as in 1 Thessalonians 2:3 f., where Paul asserts of his own ministry that it was ’ , , , 1 Timothy 3:8-9. , , , , Titus 1:7; Titus 1:11 , 1 Peter 5:2. For the gen. cf. Winer, p. 258, Plat. Rep. ix. 575 B, , 1 Corinthians 7:23, .
 I do not think the marginal reading in the R.V., “cast themselves away,” is tenable.
. Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
Zahn understand in an active, not a passive sense, as the ruling principle of the Balaam, not as the error into which others fell through his seductions. I do not think Jude discriminated between these meanings: covers both.
On the whole I understand the passage thus: Balaam went wrong because he allowed himself to hanker after gain and so lost his communion with God. He not only went wrong himself, but he abused his great influence and his reputation as a prophet, to lead astray the Israelites by drawing them away from the holy worship of Jehovah to the impure worship of Baal Peor. So these false teachers use their prophetical gifts for purposes of self-aggrandisement, and endeavour to make their services attractive by excluding from religion all that is strenuous and difficult, and opening the door to every kind of indulgence. See the notes and comments on the parallel passages of 2 Peter in my edition of that Epistle.
. For Rorah’s sin see Numbers 16:1 f. and compare, for the same rebellious spirit in the Christian Church, 3 John 1:9-10 (of Diotrephes), Titus 1:10-11. ’ , Titus 1:16; Titus 3:10-11, 1 Timothy 1:20 (among those who have made shipwreck of the faith mention is made of Hymenaeus and Alexander) , 1 Timothy 6:3-6; 2 Timothy 2:16-18, , , , 2 Timothy 2:25; 2 Timothy 4:14, where the opposition of Alexander the coppersmith is noted; but especially 2 Timothy 3:1-9, which presents a close parallel to our passage, referring to a similar resistance to Moses in the case of the apocryphal Jannes and Jambres. For see Hebrews 12:3, It is used as a translation of Meribah in Numbers 20:13al. and (in relation to Korah) in Protev. Jac. 9. , , , .
Rampf draws attention to the climax contained in these examples. The sin of Cain is marked by the words , that of Balaam the gentile prophet by , that of the Levite Korah by .
Judges 1:12. [ ] . Dr. Chase quotes Zechariah 1:10 f., Revelation 7:14, Enoch xlvi. 3, Secrets of Enoch, vii. 3 xviii. 3, xix. 3, etc., for the phrase , adding that it was probably adopted by St. Jude from apocalyptic writings, for which he clearly had a special liking. On the early history of the Agape, see my Appendix C to Clem. Al. Strom. vii. The parallel passage in 2 Peter (on which see n.) has two remarkable divergencies from the text here, reading for and for . There has been much discussion as to the meaning of the latter word. It is agreed that it is generally used of a rock in or by the sea, and many of the lexicographers understand it of a hidden rock, , see Thomas Mag., , · , , Etymol. ., ’ , , ib. , , , (both cited by Wetst.). The same explanation is given by the scholiast on Hom. Od. ver 401–405, ’ . See Plut. Mor. 101 B, , which Wytt. translates “tranquillitas maris caecam rupem tegentis,” ib. 476 A, Oecumenius on this passage, , (? - ), and , , . Wetst. also quotes Heliod. ver 31, . The compound joined with the parallel case of justifies, I think, this sense of , which is rejected by most of the later commentators.Cf. also the use of in 1 Timothy 1:19. Scopulus is used in a similar metaphoric sense, see Cic. in Pis. 41 where Piso and Gabinius are called “geminae voragines scopulique reipublicae”. Others take in the very rare sense of “spots,” or “stains,” like in 2 Peter. The only example of this sense seems to be in Orph. Lith. 614, but Hesych. gives the interpretation , . I agree with Bp. Wordsworth and Dr. Chase in thinking that the metaphor of the sunken rocks is more in harmony with the context.
 Codex Ruber (sæc. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives its name from the colour of the ink.
 Dr. Bigg denies this meaning on the strength mainly of two quotations, Hom. Od. iii. 298, , where, he says, the are identical with of 293; and Anthol. xi. 390, . In both of these I think the word refers to the breakers at the bottom of the cliffs: in the latter it is said that hidden rocks are more dangerous than visible reefs. Compare Diod. iii. 43, , .
How are we to account for the gender in ’ ? Are we to suppose the gender of was changed or forgotten in late Greek (cf. Winer, pp. 25, 38, 73, 76)? If so, the forgetfulness seems to have been confined to this author. Or is this a coustructio ad sensum, the feminine being changed to masculine because it is metaphorically used of men (Winer, pp. 171, 648, 660, 672), cf.Revelation 11:4, and B’s reading below? Or may we take as expressing a complementary notion in apposition to ? The last seems the best explanation though I cannot recall any exact parallel. An easier remedy would be to omit the article (with  and many versions), as suggested by Dr. Chase in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii. p. 799b, translating: “these are sunken rocks in your love-feasts while they feast with you”.
 Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
. Is used in the parallel passage of 2 Peter with a dat. as in Luc. Philops 4, Jos. Ant. iv. 8, 7.
. If we take as complementary to , it is better to take with .: if we omit the article and take to be the predicate, will be an epexegetic participle, which will require strengthening by . Generally . is used in a good sense, but we find it used, as here, of the want of a right fear in Proverbs 19:23, , . . ., Proverbs 15:16, , Sirach 5:5, , . The phrase . recalls Ezekiel 34:8, , , but there does not seem to be any reference to spiritual pastors in Jude; and has probably here the sense “to fatten, indulge,” as in Proverbs 28:7, , , Proverbs 29:3, , , Plut. Mor. 792 B, . We may compare 1 Corinthians 11:27 f., James 5:5, 1 Timothy 5:6.
. The character of the innovators is illustrated by figures drawn from the four elements, air, earth, sea, heaven ( ). Spitta points out the resemblance to a passage in Enoch (chapters ii.–v.), which follows immediately on the words quoted below, Judges 1:14-15. The regular order of nature is there contrasted with the disorder and lawlessness of sinners. “I observed everything that took place in the heaven, how the luminaries ’ do not deviate from their orbits, how they all rise and set in order, each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order.’ I observed and saw how in winter all the trees seem as though they were withered and shed all their leaves.’ And again I observed the days of summer ’ how the trees cover themselves with green leaves and bear fruit.’ And behold how the seas and the rivers accomplish their task. But as for you, ye have not continued steadfast; and the law of the Lord ye have not fulfilled ’ and have slanderously spoken proud and hard words (below Judges 1:15, ) with your impure mouths against his greatness.“For the metaphor cf.Ephesians 4:14. In the parallel passage of 2 Peter the first figure is broken into two, , . Perhaps the writer may have thought that there was an undue multiplication of causes; if the clouds were waterless, it was needless to add that they were driven past by the wind. We find the same comparison in Proverbs 25:14: “As clouds and wind without rain, so is he that boasteth himself of his gifts falsely”. [The LXX is less like our text, suggesting that Jude was acquainted with the original Hebrew. C] For the use of with see my note on James 3:4.
. Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
. is an adjective derived from , which is itself, I think, best explained as a compound of (cf. ), meaning the concluding portion of the . This latter word is, according to Curtius, compounded of -, connected with , , and = “the later prime”. We find used by itself both for the spring with its flowers and, more rarely, for the summer with its fruits, as in Thuc. ii. 52, . Perhaps from this double use of the word may have come the ambiguity in the application of , of which Ideler says that “it originally indicated, not a season separate from and following after the summer, but the hottest part of the summer itself, so that Sirius, whose heliacal rising took place (in the age of Homer) about the middle of July, is described as Il.Judges 1:5). In early times it would seem that the Greeks, like the Germans (Tac. Germ. 26), recognised only three seasons—winter, spring, summer, and that the last was indifferently named or : compare Arist. Aves 709, , , , with Aesch. Prom. 453, . But though was thus used strictly for the dog-days, when the fruit ripened, it was also vaguely used for the unnamed period which ensued up to the commencement of winter. Thus Hesiod (Op. 674) : and appears as a definite season by the side of the others in a line ot Euripides, qnoted by Plutarch (Mor. 1028 F), from which it appears that he assigned four months each to summer and winter, and two to spring and :—
(where the epithet deserves notice). It is said that the author of the treatise De Diaeta (c. 420 B.C.), which goes under the name of Hippocrates, was the first to introduce a definite term ( or ) for the new season, the word being reserved for the late summer, according to the definition of Eustath. on Il.Judges 1:5, . And so we find it used by Aristotle (Meteor. ii. 5), , , and by Theophrastus ( , 44), , .
There is a good deal of inconsistency about the exact limits of the seasons, as is natural enough when we remember that they were first distinguished for purposes of agriculture and navigation, as we see in Hesiod’s Works and Days. Each season brings its own proper work, and the farmer or merchant is reminded of the return of the season by various signs, the rising and setting of stars, especially of the Pleiades and Arcturus, the sun’s passage through the signs of the zodiac, the reappearance of the birds, etc. A more strictly accurate division was made by the astronomers, who distinguished between the various kinds of rising and setting of the stars, and divided the year into four equal parts by the solstices and equinoxes. In the year 46 B.C. Julius Caesar introduced his revised calendar, which assigned definite dates to the different seasons. Thus spring begins a.d. vii. id. Feb. (Feb. 7), summer a.d. vii. id. Mai. (May 9), autumn a.d. iii. id. Sext. (Aug. 11), winter a.d. iv. id. Nov. (Nov. 10).
To turn now to the commentators, I may take Trench as representing their view in his Authorised Version, p. 186, ed. 2, where he says, “The is the late autumn ’ which succeeds the (or the autumn contemplated as the time of the ripened fruits of the earth) and which has its name , from the waning away of the autumn and the autumn fruits.’ The deceivers of whom St. Jude speaks are likened to trees as they show in late autumn, when foliage and fruit alike are gone.”
I have stated above what I hold to be the origin of the word . Trench’s explanation is ambiguous and unsuited to the facts of the case, as will be seen from the criticisms in Lightfoot’s Fresh Revision, p. 135: “In the phrase ‘autumn-trees without fruit’ there appears to be a reference to the parable of the fig-tree.’ At all events the mention of the season when fruit might be expected is significant.” He adds in a note, “Strange to say, the earliest versions all rendered correctly. Tyndale’s instinct led him to give what I cannot but think the right turn to the expression, ‘Trees with out frute at gadringe (gathering) time,’ i.e. at the season when fruit was looked for. I cannot agree with Archbishop Trench, who maintains that ‘Tyndale was feeling after, though he has not grasped, the right translation,’ and himself explains as ‘mutually completing one another, without leaves, without fruit’. Tyndale was followed by Coverdale and the Great Bible. Similarly Wycliffe has ‘hervest trees without fruyt,’ and the Rheims version ‘trees of autumne unfruiteful’. The earliest offender is the Geneva Testament, which gives ‘corrupt trees and without frute’.’ The Bishops’ Bible strangely combines both renderings, ‘trees withered ( ) at fruite gathering ( ) and without fruite,’ which is explained in the margin, ‘Trees withered in autumne when the fruite harvest is, and so the Greke woord importeth’.”
 This agreement is probably owing to their dependence on the Vulgate “arbores auctumnales infructuosae”.
The correctness of the interpretation, given by Lightfoot alone among modern commentators, is confirmed by a consideration of the context. The writer has just been comparing the innovators, who have crept into other Churches, to waterless clouds driven past by the wind. Just as these disappoint the hope of the husbandman, so do fruitless trees in the proper season of fruit. If were equivalent to , denoting the season when the trees are necessarily bare both of leaves and fruit, how could a tree be blamed for being ? It is because it might have been, and ought to have been a fruit-bearing tree, that it is rooted up.
. Schneckenburger explains, “He who is not born again is dead in his sins (Colossians 2:13), he who has apostatised is twice dead,” cf.Revelation 21:8, Hebrews 6:4-8, 2 Peter 2:20-22. So the trees may be called doubly dead, when they are not only sapless, but are torn up by the root, which would have caused the death even of a living tree.
Judges 1:13. . Cf. Cic. Ad Hercnn. iv. 55, spumans ex ore scelus. The two former illustrations, the reefs and the clouds, refer to the specious professions of the libertines and the mischief they caused; the third, the dead trees, brings out also their own miserable condition; the fourth and fifth give a very fine description of their lawlessness and shamelessness, and their eventual fate. The phrase is found in Wisdom of Solomon 14:1. The rare word is used of the sea in Moschus Judges 1:5. It refers to the seaweed and other refuse borne on the crest of the waves and thrown up on the beach, to which are compared the overflowings of ungodliness (Psalms 17:4), the condemned by James 1:21, where see my note. The libertines foam out their own shames by their swelling words (Judges 1:16), while they turn the grace of God into a cloak for their licentiousness (Judges 1:4). We may compare Philippians 3:19, .
. This is borrowed from Enoch (chapters xliii., xliv.) where it is said that some of the stars become lightnings and cannot part with their new form, ib. lxxx, “In the days of the sinners, many chiefs of the stars will err, and will alter their orbits and tasks, ib. lxxxvi, where the fall of the angels is described as the falling of stars, ib. lxxxviii, “he seized the first star which had fallen from heaven and bound it in an abyss; now that abyss was narrow and deep and horrible and dark ’ and they took all the great stars and bound them hand and foot, and laid them in an abyss,” ib. xc. 24, “and judgment was held first upon the stars, and they were judged and found guilty and were cast into an abyss of fire”; also xviii. 14 f.
It would seem from these passages, which Jude certainly had before him, that cannot here have its usual application, the propriety of which was repudiated by all the ancient astronomers from Plato downwards. Cf. Cic. N. D. ii. 51, “maxime sunt admirabiles motus earum quinque stellarum quae falso vo—cantur errantes. Nihil enim errat quod in omni aeternitate conservat motus constantes et ratos,” with the passages quoted in my notes on that book.
Some commentators take it as applying to comets; perhaps the quotations from Enoch xliv and lxxx fit better with shooting-stars, (Arist. Meteor. i. 4, 7) which seem to rush from their sphere into darkness; compare Hermes Trismegistus ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 478, ’ , , . For the close relationship supposed by the Jews to exist between the stars and the angels, see my note on James 1:17, . In this passage, however, the subject of the comparison is men, who profess to give light and guidance, as the pole-star does to mariners ( , Philippians 2:15), but who are only blind leaders of the blind, centres and propagators of (Judges 1:11), destined to be swallowed up in everlasting darkness. Cf.Revelation 6:13; Revelation 8:10; Revelation 8:12; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 12:4.
. See the parallel in 2 Peter 2:17, and above Judges 1:6.
Judges 1:14. . “It was for these also (as well as for his own contemporaries) that the prophecy of Enoch was intended, far as he is removed from our time, being actually the sixth (by Hebrew calculation, seventh) descendant from Adam.” For Enoch compare the allusions in Sirach 44:16; Sirach 49:14, Hebrews 11:5, Charles, Introduction to Book of Enoch. The prophecy is contained in En. i. 9 (Greek in Charles, App. C. p. 327), (? ) , < > . The phrase is also found in En. lx. 8, “My grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam,” ib. xciii. 3, “And Enoch began to recount from the books and spake: I was born the seventh in the first week, while judgment and righteousness still tarried; and after me there will arise in the second week great wickedness,” where Charles refers to Jubilees, 7. The genealogical order, as given in Genesis 5:4-20, is (1) Adam, (2) Seth, (3) Enos, (4) Cainan, (5) Mahalaleel, (6) Jared, (7) Enoch. It is probably the sacredness of the number 7 which led the Jewish writers to lay stress upon it in Enoch’s case.
. Charles’ translation from the Aethiopic is “And lo! He comes with ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment upon them, and He will destroy the ungodly and will convict all flesh of all that the sinners and ungodly have wrought and ungodly committed against Him”. For cf.Hebrews 12:22, Psalms 68:17, Deuteronomy 33:2. For the use of denoting accompanying circumstances see Blass, Gr.N. T. tr. p. 118, and Luke 14:31, . The aorist here is the preterite of prophetic vision, as when Micaiah says, “I saw all Israel scattered,” cf.Revelation 10:7; Revelation 14:8.
Judges 1:14-16.—The Prophecy of Enoch. The ancient prophecy, to which reference has been already made, was intended for these men as well as for the prophet’s own contemporaries, where he says “The Lord appeared, encompassed by myriads of his holy ones, to execute justice upon all and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly works, and concerning all the hard things spoken against Him by ungodly sinners”. (Like them) these men are murmurers, complaining of their lot, slaves to their own carnal lusts, while they utter presumptuous words against God, and seek to ingratiate themselves with men for the sake of gain.
Judges 1:15. . Follows exactly the Greek translation of Enoch given above, cf. Ael. V. H. ii. 6, . On the distinction between the active “to execute judgment” (as in John 5:27) and the periphrastic middle = (as in Isocr.48 D) see my notes on and , and (James 4:3; James 3:3).
. Shortened from the Greek Enoch quoted above.
. Cf.Judges 1:4; Judges 1:18. The word thrice repeated in this verse runs through the epistle as a sort of refrain.
. This is taken from Enoch xxvii. 2. Charles, p. 366 (To Gehenna shall come), , cf.ib.Judges 1:4, “The law of the Lord ye have not fulfilled, but ’ have slanderously spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness,” ib. ci. 3, al., Genesis 42:7, , 1 Kings 12:13, , Malachi 3:13-15.
Judges 1:16. , . Charles thinks that we have here another case of borrowing from the Assumption of Moses, see his Introd. on Apocryphal Quotations. The word is used in the LXX, Exodus 16:8, Numbers 11:1; Numbers 11:14-27; Numbers 11:29. The verb is found in John 7:32 of the whispering of the multitude in favour of Jesus, but is generally used of smouldering discontent which people are afraid to speak out, as in 1 Corinthians 10:10, of the murmurings of the Israelites in the wilderness; Matthew 20:11 (where see Wetst.) of the grumbling of the labourers who saw others receiving a day’s pay for an hour’s labour; John 6:41-43 of the Jews who took offence at the preaching of the Bread of Life. It is found in Epict. and M. Aur. but not in classical authors. is used in 1 Peter 4:9. See further in Phrynichus, p. 358 Lob. For the word see Lucian, Cynic. 17, , , , , , ’ , , and Theophr. Char. 17. It is used of the murmuring of the Israelites by Philo, Vit. Mos. 1. 109 M. See other examples in Wetst. The same spirit is condemned in James 1:13.
. cf.2 Peter 3:3; 2 Peter 2:10, below Judges 1:18, and see my notes on James 4:1-2. Plumptre notes “The temper of self-indulgence recognising not God’s will, but man’s desires, as the law of action, is precisely that which issues in weariness and despair ’ cf.Ecclesiastes 2:1-20”.
. See Enoch Judges 1:4, quoted on Judges 1:15, also Enoch ci. 3, “ye have spoken insolent words against His righteousness,” Psalms 12:4, Psalms 73:8, Daniel 7:8, and Judges 1:20 of the little horn; compare above Judges 1:4; Judges 1:8; Judges 1:11, and James 3:5 foll. In classical writers is generally used of great or even excessive size, in later writers it is also used of “big” words, arrogant speech and demeanour, see Alford’s note on 2 Peter 2:18 and Plut. Mor. 1119 B (Socrates), , 2 Peter 2:7 A, where is styled in contrast with , Plut. Vitae 505 B, . It is found in 2 Peter 2:18 and in Daniel 11:36, , .
.The phrase occurs with the same force in Leviticus 19:15, , Job 13:10, see my note on James 2:1, . ., and cf.1 Timothy 3:8, quoted above on Judges 1:11. As the fear of God drives out the fear of man, so defiance of God tends to put man in His place, as the chief source of good or evil to his fellows. For the anacoluthon ( — ) compare Colossians 2:2, , where a similar periphrasis ( = ) is followed by a constructio ad sensum, also Winer, p. 716. Perhaps the intrusion of the finite clause into a participial series may be accounted for by a reminiscence of Psalms 17:10, , or Psalms 144:8; Psalms 144:11, where a similar phrase occurs.
Judges 1:17. , , . The writer turns again, as in Judges 1:20 below, to the faithful members of the Church (Judges 1:3) and reminds them, not now of primeval prophecy, but of warning words uttered by the Apostles. Some have taken this as a quotation by Jude from 2 Peter 3:3, where the quotation is given more fully. But, there also, the words are referred back to a prior authority, “holy prophets” and “your Apostles”. The words , which follow, imply that the warning was spoken, not written, and that it was often repeated.
Judges 1:17-19.—The Faithful are bidden to call to mind the warnings of the Apostles. The Apostles warned you repeatedly that in the last time there would arise mockers led away by their own carnal lusts. It is these that are now breaking up the unity of the Church by their invidious distinctions, men of unsanctified minds, who have not the Spirit of God. See Introduction on the Early Heresies in the larger edition.
Judges 1:18. . The parallel in 2 Peter 3:3 is , where see note on the use of the article with , etc. For , cf. Arist. Pol. iv. 3, .
The prophecy of this mocking, as a mark of the future trials of the Church, has not come down to us. An example of it in the very beginning of the Church is given in Acts 2:13, . In the O.T. we have such examples as 2 Chronicles 36:16 (the summing up of the attitude of the Jews towards the prophets) , Jeremiah 20:8, . Cf. also the mockery at the crucifixion, and the declaration in Matthew 10:25 f., , . . . In 2 Peter the purport of this mockery is explained to be the unfulfilled promise of the Parusia. Here we must gather its meaning from the account already given of the libertines. If they turned the grace of God into licentiousness, they would naturally mock at the narrowness and want of enlightenment of those who took a strict and literal view of the divine commandments: if they made light of authority and treated spiritual things with irreverence, if they foamed out their own shame and uttered proud and impious words, if they denied God and Christ, they would naturally laugh at the idea of a judgment to come. On the form and its cognates, see note on 2 Peter.
. I am rather disposed to take here as a subjective genitive, “lusts belonging to, or arising from their impieties,” cf.Romans 1:28, , . The position of the genitive is peculiar, and probably intended to give additional stress. We may compare it with James 2:1, , , where some connect with in a qualitative sense.
Judges 1:19. . “These are they that make invidious distinctions.” See Introduction on the Text. The rare word is used of logical distinctions in Aristotle, Pol. iv. 43, , (“as, if we wished to make a classification of animals, we should have begun by setting aside that which all animals have in common”) and, I believe, in every other passage in which it is known to occur: see Maximus Confessor, ii. p. 103 D, , , translated “naturali in eo (Christo) constituta voluntate, arbitrariam dispunxit,” ib. p. 131 C, , , , “quod dixerat hoc solum spectare ut libidinosam, non ut naturalem voluntatem a Salvatore eliminaret,” Severus de Clyst. xxxii., xxv., , . The simple is found in Leviticus 20:24, “I separated you from the nations,” Job 35:11; so Matthew 25:32, , Acts 19:9 (Paul left the synagogue) , 2 Corinthians 6:17, , Luke 6:22 (of excommunication) , Galatians 2:12 (of Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentiles) .
. Used of worldly wisdom in James 3:15, where see note, distinguished from in 1 Corinthians 2:13-15; 1 Corinthians 15:44, cf. the teaching of the Naassenes (ap. Hippol. p. 164) , , , .
. The subjective negative may be explained as describing a class (such as have not) rather than as stating a fact in regard to particular persons; but the use of is much more widely extended in late than in classical Greek, cf. such phrases as , . It is simplest to understand here of the Holy Spirit, cf.Romans 8:9, , , 1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 7:40, 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:13, and the contrast in Judges 1:20, . Others, e.g. Plumptre, prefer the explanation that “the false teachers were so absorbed in their lower sensuous nature that they no longer possessed, in any real sense of the word. that element in man’s compound being, which is itself spiritual, and capable therefore of communion with the Divine Spirit”.
Judges 1:20. , . Contrasted with the libertines, as in Judges 1:17.
. For the spiritual temple, cf.1 Peter 2:3-5; Colossians 1:23; Ephesians 2:20-22, , . . ., 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, a passage which the writer may have had in his mind here and in Judges 1:23. Dr. Bigg compares Polyc. Philippians 3. “If ye study the epistles of the blessed apostle Paul, . Add Clem. Strom, v. p. 644, . Usually Christ is spoken as the foundation or corner-stone of the Church, and we should probably assign an objective sense to here, as in Judges 1:3 above ( ). Otherwise it might be explained of that faculty by which we are brought into relation with the spiritual realities (Hebrews 11:1, , ), that which is the introduction to all the other Christian graces, see note on 2 Peter 1:5, and which leads to eternal life (1 Peter 1:5; 1 Peter 1:9, , ). The faith is here called “most holy,” because it comes to us from God, and reveals God to us, and because it is by its means that man is made righteous, and enabled to overcome the world (1 John 5:4-5). Cf.1 Peter 5:9, .
. These words, contrasted with in Judges 1:19, show how they are to build themselves up upon their faith. I understand them as equivalent to James 5:16, , where see note. Compare also Ephesians 6:18, , Romans 8:26-27.
Judges 1:20-23. The Final Charge to the Faithful.—Use all diligence to escape this danger. Make the most of the privileges vouchsafed to you. Build yourselves up on the foundation of your most holy faith by prayer in the Spirit. Do not rest satisfied with the belief that God loves you, but keep yourselves in His love, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ which leads us to eternal life. And do your best to help those who are in danger of falling away by pointing out their errors and giving the reasons of your own belief; and by snatching from the fire of temptation those who are in imminent jeopardy. Even where there is most to fear, let your compassion and your prayers go forth toward the sinner, while you shrink from the pollution of his sin.
Judges 1:21. . In Judges 1:1 the passive is used: those who are addressed are described as kept and beloved (cf.Judges 1:24, ): here the active is used and emphasised by the unusual order of words; each is to keep himself in the love of God, cf. James 1:27, , Philippians 2:12, · . Again in Judges 1:2 the writer invokes the divine love and mercy on those to whom he writes: here they are bidden to take steps to secure these. Compare Romans 5:5, , ib.Romans 8:39, ’ , John 15:9. , . , . The aor. imper. is expressive ot urgency, see note on , in James 1:2.
. Cf.Titus 2:13, . ., and 2 Peter 3:12-14. The same word is used of the Jews who were looking for the promised Messiah at the time of His first coming, Mark 15:43, Luke 2:25; Luke 2:38.
. Some connect this closely with the imperative , but it seems to me to follow more naturally on the nearer phrase, . : cf. 1 Pet. 1:37, ’ ’ ’ ’ .
Judges 1:22. . On the reading see the Introduction. For the form instead of , cf.Matthew 13:8; Matthew 22:5, Luke 23:33, Acts 27:44, Romans 14:5, 1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Corinthians 11:21, 2 Corinthians 2:16, 2 Timothy 2:20, not used in Hebrews, 1 and 2 Pet., James or John. The doubled is found in Matthew 21:35, , , . Matthew 25:15, , , . The use is condemned as a solecism by Thomas Magister and by Lucian, Soloec. 1, but is common in late Greek from the time of Aristotle, cf. Sturz. Dial. Maced. pp. 105 f. On the word (here wrongly translated “strafen,” in the sense of excommunication, by Rampf), see Const. Apost. vii. 5, 3, , and Hare’s excellent note  in his Mission of the Comforter, where he argues that the conviction wrought by the Spirit is a conviction unto salvation, rather than unto condemnation; and quotes Luecke as saying that “ always implies the refutation, the overcoming of an error, a wrong, by the truth and right. When this is brought before our conscience through the there arises a feeling of sin, which is always painful: thus every is a chastening, a punishment.” Compare Grote’s life-like account of the Socratic Elenchus in his Hist. of Greece.
 Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
This verse seems to be referred to in Can. Apost. vi. 4, , , , , , which is also found in the Didache ii. 7, with the omission of . Cf.John 16:8, , 1 Corinthians 14:24, (the effect of the prophets’ teaching on an unbeliever), Titus 1:13, . Titus 1:9, 2 Timothy 4:2 (the charge to Timothy) , , Revelation 3:19, , Ephesians 5:13, . There is a tone of greater severity in the of the 15th verse, but even there we need not suppose that the preacher is hopeless of good being effected. The point is of importance in deciding the mutual relations of the three cases here considered.
. We should have expected a nominative here to correspond with and in the following clauses, and so the text. rec. has , wrongly translated in A.V., as if it were the active , “making a difference”. This gives such a good sense that some commentators (e.g. Stier) have been willing to condone the bad Greek. It would have been better to alter the reading at once. Keeping the reading of the best MSS. we may either take the accusative as complementary to (as we find in Plato, Theaet. 171 D, , Xen. Mem. 1, 7, 2, , Jelf. § 681), or simply as descriptive of the condition of the persons referred to. There is also a question as to the meaning we should assign to . Is it to be understood in the same sense as in James 1:6; James 2:4? In that case we might translate “convict them of their want of faith,” taking the participle as complementary to the verb; or “reprove them because of their doubts”. It seems more probable, however, that the meaning here is “convince them when they dispute with you,” which we may compare with 1 Peter 3:15, ’ (cf. below). So taken, this first clause would refer to intellectual difficulties to be met by quiet reasoning; the force of being the same as that in Judges 1:9, ., and in Socr. E.H.Judges 1:5, .
Judges 1:23. . Here again a word which is strictly applicable to God is transferred to him whom God uses as His instrument, cf.1 Peter 4:11 and notes on , above, especially James 5:20, .
. The expression is borrowed from Amos 4:11, , , , , and Zechariah 3:3, ; Both passages have further connexions with our epistle, the former from the reference to Sodom (see above Judges 1:7), the latter as following immediately on the words, quoted in Judges 1:9, and preceding a reference to filthy garments (see note below). In it the High Priest Joshua is a representative of Israel, saved like a brand from the captivity, which was the punishment of national sin. The image of fire is naturally suggested by the allusion to the punishment of Sodom in the passage of Amos, and of Korah (see above Judges 1:7) described in Numbers 16:35, Psalms 106:18, . The writer may also have had in mind St. Paul’s description of the building erected on the One Foundation (see above Judges 1:20), which, he says, will be tried by fire, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, , ’ , , , . Such an one may be spoken of as “a brand snatched from the fire,” not however as here, saved from the fire of temptation, but as saved through the agency of God’s purgatorial fire, whether in this or in a future life.
. The faithful are urged to show all possible tenderness for the fallen, but at the same time to have a fear lest they themselves or others whom they influence should be led to think too lightly of the sin whose ravages they are endeavouring to repair. Cf.2 Corinthians 7:1, , Philippians 2:12, 1 Peter 1:17; 1 Peter 3:15. For the confusion of the contracted verbs in - and - in late Greek see Jannaris, § 850. § 854 f., Winer p. 104. The best MSS. read in Proverbs 21:26, and Romans 9:16, but in Romans 9:18.
. While it is the duty of the Christian to pity and pray for the sinner, he must view with loathing all that bears traces of the sin. The form of expression seems borrowed from such passages as Isaiah 30:22, Leviticus 15:17, perhaps too from Zechariah 3:4, . Cf.Revelation 3:4, , and Apocal. Pauli quoted by Spitta, . The derivatives of are peculiar to late Greek: the only other examples of in Biblical Greek are James 3:6, ’ and Wisdom of Solomon 15:4, . Compare for the treatment of the erring 2 Timothy 2:25-26, , , .
Judges 1:24. . Apparently a reminiscence of Romans 16:25 f., ’ , , . Similarly the noble doxology in Ephesians 3:20, commences . The reading is confirmed by the evidence of  and , which was unknown to Alford when he endeavoured to defend the reading , found in KP and some inferior MSS.
 For the position and genuineness of this doxology see the Introduction and notes in Sanday and Headlam’s commentary, and the dissertations by Lightfoot and Hort in the former’s Biblical Essays, pp. 287–374.
 Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
 Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
. Occurs in 3 Maccabees 6:39, : used here only in the N.T. The verb has the same figurative sense in James 2:10; James 3:2, , , 2 Peter 1:10, .
. Cf.Matthew 25:31-33, ’ , Acts 6:6, , Colossians 1:22, (which Lightfoot refers to present approbation rather than to the future judgment of God, comparing Romans 14:22, 1 Corinthians 1:29, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 7:12; 2 Corinthians 12:19). In the present passage the addition of the words shows that the final judgment, the goal of , is spoken of. Hort, in his interesting note on 1 Peter 1:19, , traces the way in which the words “blame,” and “blameless,” come to be used (in “the Apocrypha, the N.T., and other books which presuppose the LXX”) in the entirely unclassical sense of “blemish” and “unblemished” cf.Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 5:27, Hebrews 9:14. In 2 Peter 3:14, seems to be used in the same sense. The word is apparently confined to the Bible, where it occurs in Joshua 1:5; Joshua 21:42, Leviticus 4:17, Ephesians 1:4, , is found in Hom. Il. 15:320. For see Hort’s note on 1 Peter 1:6, , “in whom ye exult”. The verb with its cognate substantives “is unknown except in the LXX and the N.T. and the literature derived from them, and in the N.T. it is confined to books much influenced by O.T. diction (Matt., Luke, Acts, 1 Pet., Jude, John, including Apoc.), being absent from the more Greek writers, St. Paul, and (except in quot.) Heb.’ It apparently denotes a proud exulting joy, being probably connected closely with , properly ‘to be proud of,’ but often combined with and such words.”
Judges 1:24-25. Final Benediction and Ascription. I have bidden you to keep yourselves in the love of God; I have warned you against all impiety and impurity. But do not think that you can attain to the one, or guard yourselves from the other, in your own strength. You must receive power from above; and that it may be so, I offer up my prayer to Him, who alone is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you before the throne of His glory, pure and spotless in exceeding joy. To Him, the only God and Saviour, belong glory, greatness, might, and authority throughout all ages.
Judges 1:25. . See above on Judges 1:4, . God is called in Isaiah 45:15, ’ , Isaiah 45:21, Sirach 51:1, , Philo, Confus. Ling. §20, 1. p. 418 fin., ’ (? - ); cf.Luke 1:47, , elsewhere in N.T. only in Titus 1:3; Titus 2:10; Titus 3:4, ’ ’ ’ . . , 1 Timothy 1:1, . . . . 1 Timothy 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:10. The later writers of the N.T. seem to have felt it needful to insist upon the unity of God, and the saving will of the Father, in opposition to antinomian attacks on the Law.
. It seems best to take with and the following words. The glory of God is manifested through the Word, cf.1 Peter 4:11, . . .
. The verb is often omitted in these ascriptions, cf. 2 Pet. , Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27, Galatians 1:5, Luke 2:16, . In 1 Peter 4:11 it is inserted, , and, as we find no case in which is inserted, and the indicative is more subject to ellipse than the imperative, it might seem that we should supply “is” here; but the R. V. gives “be,’ and there are similar phrases expressive of a wish or prayer, as the very common , where we must supply or . De Wette maintained that the following words , referring to already existing fact, were incompatible with a prayer; but it is sufficient that the prayer has regard mainly to the present and future; the past only comes in to give it a fuller, more joyful tone, reminding us of the eternity of God, as in the psalmist’s words, “I said it is my own infirmity, but I will remember the years of the right hand of the Most High,” and the close of our own doxology “as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be”. I do not see, however, that we need exclude either interpretation. The writer may exult in that which he believes to be already fact in the eternal world, and yet pray for its more perfect realisation in time, as in the Lord’s Prayer, . The omission of the verb allows of either or both views in varying proportion. by itself is the commonest of all ascriptions. It is joined with in 1 Timothy 1:17 and elsewhere, as here with . It is joined with in 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Peter 5:11, Revelation 1:6. Fuller ascriptions are found in Revelation 4:11, , ’ , Revelation 5:13, ’ , Revelation 7:12, . Just before (Judges 1:10) we have the remarkable ascription . Compare with this the ascription of David (1 Chronicles 29:11), , . For a similar expression in regard to the future blessedness of man, see Romans 2:10, . An unusual form of ascription occurs in Clem. Rom. 59:2, · , , , .
 For a full account of the early doxologies, see Chase on the Lord’s Prayer (Texts and Studies, i. 3, p. 68 foll.). He states that the common doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer ( “appears to be a conflation of two distinct forms,” and “was added to the Prayer in the ‘Syrian’ text of St. Matthew’s Gospel”.
. Only found elsewhere in N.T. in Hebrews 1:3, , repeated in Hebrews 8:1. Dr. Chase notes that it occurs in Enoch Judges 1:4, , xii. 3, xiv. 16 (a house excelling) . It is coupled with , of which it may be regarded as an extension, in the doxology used by Clem. Rom. 20, 61. I am not aware of any other example of in a doxology: compare, however, Matthew 28:18, .
. cf.1 Corinthians 2:7 ( ) , Proverbs 8:23, (i.e. ), . An equivalent expression is found in John 17:24, . . . also Ephesians 1:4, . . . and 1 Peter 1:20 ( ) . . ., . St. Jude speaks of one past age and of several ages to come. On the other hand St. Paul speaks of many ages in the past (1 Corinthians 2:7), and St. John of only one age in the future.
. This precise phrase is unique in the Bible, but is common enough, as in Luke 1:33, Romans 1:25; Romans 5:5; Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27, 2 Corinthians 11:31, etc., so in LXX, Daniel 2:4; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 6:6; Daniel 6:26. The stronger phrase occurs in Galatians 1:5, Philippians 4:20, 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 13:21, 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Peter 5:11, Revelation 1:6, etc. John uses only apparently with the same meaning. Other variations are found in Ephesians 3:21, . . , 2 Peter 3:18, .
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Jude 1". The Expositor's Greek Testament. https://www.studylight.org/
the Second Week after Epiphany