Jude Chapter 1, Verse 12
From BibleWiki
12: ουτοι εισιν εν ταις αγαπαις υμων σπιλαδες συνευωχουμενοι υμιν αφοβως εαυτους ποιμαινοντες νεφελαι ανυδροι υπο ανεμων περιφερομεναι δενδρα φθινοπωρινα ακαρπα δις αποθανοντα εκριζωθεντα
12: These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast
with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are
without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit
withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
12: These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear,
feeding themselves: clouds without water, which are carried about by
winds: trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the
roots:
"These are they who are spots in your love feasts." agapais is undoubtedly the right reading, though A C have apatais, cf. 2 Pet 2:13. oi before spilades is given by A B L, but omitted by × K on account of the difficulty which it creates.
For the meaning of spilas see Orpheus, Lithica, 614 (ed. G. Hermann), where the agate is described as katastiltos spiladessi "dappled with spots" (Tyrwhitt thought that this treatise was composed as late as the reign of Constantius, but there is no reason for suspecting that the author invented this use of the word); Hesychius, spilades memiasmenoi. Thus the word is merely a variant for the spiloi of 2 Peter.
The R.V. translates "these are they that are hidden rocks," following the Etym. Mag., which explains spilades by huphalo petrai. But in the Anthology, xi. 390, the two are expressly distinguished - phasi de kai neessin haliplaneessi chereious tas huphalous petras ton phanerown spiladon, and in Hom. Od. iii. the spilades of 298 are the same as the lisse aipeia te eis hala petre of 293. The epithet "hidden" therefore must be struck out, and with it the notion of a hidden danger. Further, spilas means a rock, not only in the sea, or on the beach, but in land, see Soph. Track. 678 ; Theocritus, Epigr. iv. 6. Thus the word does not include an allusion to shipwreck, nor indeed to danger of any kind. Hence the statements of Suidas, spilades hai en hudasi koilai petrai, and of Hesychius, spilades hai periechoumenai te thalasse petrai (this he gives as an alternative explanation), are not strictly accurate. Nor is the note of Oecumenius, ai spilades tois pleousin olethpioi, aprosdoketos epiligomenai, to be taken for more than it is worth, as the expression of his own opinion.
spilas is feminine, hence there is a difficulty in the masculine article hoi. We must supply either ontes or keklemenoi, and translate " these are the men who are spots," or "these are the men who have been called spots." The insertion of the article seems to show that Jude had in his mind some definite passage where these men or men like them had been actually spoken of as "spots." Thus it becomes probable that he is here directly referring to 2 Pet 2:13. This is the opinion maintained by Spitta.
Dr. Chase dismisses this view with the remark that this (houtoi eisin hoi) is a regular form in apocalyptic literature. See for instances Zech 1:10; Rev 7:14, Rev 11:4, Rev 14:4; Enoch 463; Apoc. Petri, 4. 7. 9. 14. 15. 16. The remark is true, but does not meet the point. The form is not specially apocalyptic (see Mt 3:3, Mt 3:17, and numberless other examples might be given from writings of all kinds). Either it points a reference to something that the readers know already, as in Rev 11:4, houtoi eisin hai duo elaiai, "these are the two olive trees" that you have read of in Zech 4:3, or it answers the question, Who are these? identifying two known persons or classes of persons. But it does not convey fresh information about the persons. Thus houtoi eisin hoi blasphemountes ton hodon tos dikaiosunes is "these are the men who blaspheme the way of righteousness" (houtoi is predicate), while houtoi blasphemousi is "these men blaspheme" (here houtoi is subject). Jude is quite aware of this difference, and uses both forms correctly; thus we have, Jude 1:16, houtoi eisin gongustai, "these men are murmurers "; and, on the other hand, houtoi eisin hoi progegrammenoi, Jude 1:4, not houtoi eisi progegrammenoi. Hence it is not probable that he would write houtoi eisin hoi spilades for houtoi eisi spilades. He must mean either "these are the men whom everybody calls spots," or "these are the men whom some particular person has called so." The latter is the more probable, and Spitta's opinion may therefore well be defended. An objection might be raised on the ground of Rev 14:4, houtoi eisin hoi meta to apnoi hopou han hupage, where no question has been distinctly asked; but even this case falls under the rule. The meaning is not "these men are virgins," but "these men are the virgins," whom you knew in the Church. There may again be a reference to some well-known phrase, for the second clause contains an apparent allusion to the familiar words "follow thou me."
If we adopt the other rendering, "these are they that are rocks," we must still regard the words as an allusion to some well-known passage. But none can be found. peri ton pistin enauagesan, 1 Tim 1:19, is much too vague.
oweuuxoufieroi. Cf. 2 Pet 2:13, spiloi kai mumoi, entruthontes en tais agapais autown suneuochoumenoi humin. St. Peter means "while they share the feast with you." Jude's language may bear the same sense, but he seems rather to give suneuochoumenoi a different turn, "while they carouse together," by themselves. We may possibly infer from aphobos heautous poimainontes and apodiopizontes (Jude 1:19), that these men drew together at a separate part of the table, or even that they kept an Agape of their own; and the words en tais agapais humon are not conclusive against the latter hypothesis, for they may mean "in the Agape of your community." Certainly the language of St. Jude leads us to infer that the division was more clearly marked than we should gather from 2 Peter, and this point again makes in favour of the priority of the latter.
αφοβως εαυτους ποιμαινοντες. "Shepherding themselves without fear." aphobos must be taken with poimainontes not with suneuochoumenoi, with which it yields no good sense. poimainein is the verb which expresses the whole authority of Christ, or of the priest, over the flock. The instance of Korah, employed in Jude 1:11, shows that Jude is here thinking of the latter. These men defied the authority of their rulers, made themselves their own shepherds, and yet feared no harm. If we think of the way in which Balaam is mentioned in Rev 2:14, it is tempting to suppose that one way in which they exhibited their lawlessness was by eating ta eidolothuta at the Agape. Dr. Chase (article on Jude in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible} thinks there may be a reference here to Ezek 34:2, me boskousin poimenes heautous;
νεφελαι ανυδÏοι υπο ανεμων πεÏιφεÏομεναι. Peter has pegai anudpoi kai omichlai hupo lailapos elaunomenai. Jude, using only one figure, calls his opponents "Clouds which drop no water, and are blown past by winds." From teachers we expect the beneficent rain of doctrine and example : these men are like clouds which give no rain and only hide the sun; they are blown past and seen no more. There is a weak variant peritheromenai, "tossed about," an image of instability ; the word is possibly suggested by Eph 4:14.
δενδÏα φθινοπωÏινα. The epithet means more than autumnal. phthinoporon means not autumn, the season of fruit (tethaluia opore: autumnus from augeo), but the "fall of the year," the season just before winter, when growth has stopped, and the branches are bare. We may translate "trees in the fall," or even "trees in winter." akarpa is probably suggested by ouk apgous oude akarpous, 2 Pet 1:8. dis apothanonta, "twice dead," not only fruitless, but actually dead and incapable of bearing fruit; or not only dead, but uprooted; or, again, St. Jude may be thinking of these men no longer as trees, but as Christians; they were dead once in trespasses and sins, now again they have died by apostasy. If this last explanation is tenable, St. Jude may have been thinking of 2 Pet 1:9, 2 Pet 2:20, and strengthening the expression. ekrizothenta, they are already cut off from their root; the root is either the Church (apodiopizontes) or Christ.
These are spots. See Barnes "2 Pet 2:13".
The word used by Peter, however, is not exactly the same as that used here. Peter uses the word spiloi -- spiloi; Jude, spiladev -- spilades. The word used by Jude means, properly, a rock by or in the sea; a cliff, etc. It may either be a rock by the sea, against which vessels may be wrecked, or a hidden rock in the sea, on which they may be stranded at an unexpected moment. See Hesychius and Pollux, as quoted by Wetstein, in loc. The idea here seems to be, not that they were spots and blemishes in their sacred feasts, but that they were like hidden rocks to the mariner. As those rocks were the cause of shipwreck, so these false teachers caused others to make shipwreck of their faith. They were as dangerous in the church as hidden rocks are in the ocean.
In your feasts of charity. Your feasts of love. The reference is probably to the Lord's Supper, called a feast or festival of love, because
(1.) it revealed the love of Christ to the world;
(2.) because it was the means of strengthening the mutual love of the disciples: a festival which love originated, and where love reigned. It has been supposed by many, that the reference here is to festivals which were subsequently called Agapae, and which are now known as love-feasts -- meaning a festival immediately preceding the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
But there are strong objections to the supposition that there is reference here to such a festival.
(1.) There is no evidence, unless it be found in this passage, that such celebrations had the sanction of the apostles. They are nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament, or alluded to, unless it is in 1Cor 11:17ff, an instance which is mentioned only to reprove it, and to show that such appendages to the Lord's Supper were wholly unauthorized by the original institution, and were liable to gross abuse.
(2.) The supposition that they existed, and that they are referred to here, is not necessary in order to a proper explanation of this passage. All that it fairly means will be met by the supposition that the reference is to the Lord's Supper. That was in every sense a festival of love or charity. The words will appropriately apply to that, and there is no necessity of supposing anything else in order to meet their full signification.
(3.) There can be no doubt that such a custom early existed in the Christian church, and extensively prevailed; but it can readily be accounted for without supposing that it had the sanction of the apostles, or that it existed in their time.
(a.) Festivals prevailed among the Jews, and it would not be unnatural to introduce them into the Christian church.
(b.) The custom prevailed among the heathen of having a "feast upon a sacrifice," or in connexion with a sacrifice; and as the Lord's Supper commemorated the great sacrifice for sin, it was not unnatural, in imitation of the heathen, to append a feast or festival to that ordinance, either before or after its celebration.
(c.) This very passage in Jude, with perhaps some others in the New Testament, (comp. 1Cor 11:26 Acts 2:46, Acts 6:2, ) might be so construed as to seem to lend countenance to the custom. For these reasons it seems clear to me that the passage before us does not refer to love-feasts; and, therefore, that they are not authorized in the New Testament. See, however, Coleman's Antiquities of the Christian church, chap. xvi., & 13.
When they feast with you. Showing that they were professors of religion. See Barnes "2 Pet 2:13".
Feeding themselves without fear. That is, without any proper reverence or respect for the ordinance; attending on the Lord's Supper as if it were an ordinary feast, and making it an occasion of riot and gluttony. See 1Cor 11:20ff.
Clouds they are, etc. See Barnes "2 Pet 2:17.
Trees whose fruit withereth. The idea here is substantially the same as that expressed by Peter, when he says that they were "wells without water;" and by him and Jude, when they say that they are like clouds driven about by the winds, that shed down no refreshing rain upon the earth. Such wells and clouds only disappoint expectations. So a tree that should promise fruit, but whose fruit should always wither, would be useless. The word rendered withereth (fyinopwrina) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, autumnal; and the expression here denotes trees of autumn; that is, trees stripped of leaves and verdure; trees on which there is no fruit. -- Robinson's Lex. The sense, in the use of this word, therefore, is not exactly that which is expressed in our translation, that the fruit has withered, but rather that they are like the trees of autumn, which are stripped and bare. So the Vulgate, arbores autumnales. The idea of their being without fruit is expressed in the next word. The image which seems to have been before the mind of Jude in this expression, is that of the naked trees of autumn as contrasted with the bloom of spring and the dense foliage of summer.
Without fruit. That is, they produce no fruit. Either they are wholly barren, like the barren fig-tree, or the fruit which was set never ripens, but falls off. They are, therefore, useless as religious instructors -- as much so as a tree is which produces no fruit.
Twice dead. That is, either meaning that they are seen to be dead in two successive seasons, showing that there is no hope that they will revive and be valuable; or, using the word twice to denote emphasis, meaning that they are absolutely or altogether dead. Perhaps the idea is, that successive summers and winters have passed over them, and that no signs of life appear.
Plucked up by the roots. The wind blows them down, or they are removed by the husbandman as only cumbering the ground. They are not cut down -- leaving a stump that might sprout again -- but they are extirpated root and branch; that is, they are wholly worthless. There is a regular ascent in this climax, first, the apostle sees a tree apparently of autumn, stripped and leafless; then he sees it to be a tree that bears no fruit; then he sees it to be a tree over which successive winters and summers pass and no signs of life appear; then as wholly extirpated. So he says it is with these men. They produce no fruits of holiness; months and years show that there is no vitality in them; they are fit only to be extirpated and cast away. Alas! how many professors of religion are there, and how many religious teachers, who answer to this description!
