Jude Chapter 1, Verse 4
From BibleWiki
4: παρεισεδυσαν γαρ τινες ανθρωποι οι παλαι προγεγραμμενοι εις τουτο το κριμα ασεβεις την του θεου ημων χαριν μετατιθεντες εις ασελγειαν και τον μονον δεσποτην θεον και κυριον ημων ιησουν χριστον αρνουμενοι
4: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before
of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the
grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only
Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
4: For certain men are secretly entered in (who were written of long
ago unto this judgment), ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God
into riotousness and denying the only sovereign Ruler and our Lord Jesus
Christ.
παÏεισεδυσαν γαÏ. "For certain men have crept in privily, who of old were appointed in scripture unto this doom." gar introduces the reason of anagken eschon. For pareisedusan B has pareiseduesan, a vulgar form ; see Blass, p. 43. The aorist is here not distinguishable in sense from the perfect; as to the meaning of the compound verb, refer to note on pareisagein, 2 Pet 2:1.
palai is most naturally taken to mean in the Old Testament, in the many denunciations of false prophets. The word, however, does not always denote a long interval of time; hence Zahn and Spitta would render, "who were some time ago appointed in a writing for this doom," and find here a direct reference to 2 Pet 2:3. But though the Greeks (more especially the poets; see references in Liddell and Scott) sometimes use palai in a loose colloquial way, just as we use "long ago" of things that happened quite recently, we must not give the word this sense without good reason. Jude could hardly have spoken of 2 Peter as written palai, unless he were looking back over a space of twenty or thirty years. Unless we are to suppose that the two Epistles were separated by such an interval as this, the explanation of Zahn and Spitta can hardly be adopted.
Nevertheless we have here a reference to 2 Pet 2:3. As used by Jude, krima has no meaning, for he has entirely omitted to say what the doom is. The best explanation of this curious difficulty is that he was writing in haste, with 2 Peter fresh in his mind, and that his words are suggested by ois to krima ekpalai ouk argei in the Petrine passage. If this be so, we have here one of the strongest proofs of the posteriority of Jude.
Some support for this view may be found in the weakness of the various explanations which have been found for krima. Wiesinger, Hofmann, Schott find the key in pareisedusan, they have wickedly crept in, and this is their judgment. But, we must answer, the creeping in is their sin, not their punishment. Zahn also (Einleitung, ii. 80) goes back for his solution to the main verb; they have crept in, and their appearance is a judgment, not on them, but on the Church, inasmuch as it will lead to a sifting out of bad Christians from among the good. Cf. Jn 9:39, eis krima ego eis ton kosmon elthon, hina oi me blepontes bleposi, kai oi blepontes tuphloi genontai: the reader may refer to Westcott's note upon this passage. But it seems evident that here the krima is one which hangs over the intruders themselves. Huther found the explanation of krima in the apolesen of Jude 1:5; but this verb stands much too far off, and does not directly apply to the evildoers in question; further, if this had been the writer's meaning, we should have expected gar, not de, after hupomnesai. Spitta finds it in the words asebeis ... arnoumenoi: their judgment is that they are impious and deny the Lord. But here again impiety and denial are sins, not sentences. It may be replied that sin may be regarded as its own punishment, but this idea certainly does not belong to Jude. Not one of these views is satisfactory. Each commentator destroys the opinion of others without establishing his own, and we are really driven to suppose that St. Jude, in his hurry, picked out St. Peter's word without observing that it required an explanation.
charita. The grace is the pistis, or the gospel (1 Pet 1:10); it promises a freedom which these impious men turn into lasciviousness.
τον μονον δεσποτην θεον και κυÏιον ημων ιησουν χÏιστον αÏνουμενοι. Cf. 2 Pet 2:1, ton agorasanta autous despoten arnoumenoi. St. Peter's phrase is certainly the finer, and is probably the original; it is marked by his favourite iambic rhythm; the amprasanta explains and limits despoten, and here, as in other passages to be noticed as we proceed, Jude has a tendency to exaggerate and harden the thought of St. Peter. ton monon despoten is so strong a phrase that it has been regarded as impossible. Hence K L P and several other authorities, followed by the textus receptus, insert theon after despoten: and many commentators, who do not accept this read¬ing, yet translate in the same sense, " the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ." But this misrendering is needless. If Christ may be called despotes, He may also be called monos despotes in distinction not from the Father, but from all false masters. Cf. note on Jude 1:25.
For there are certain men crept in unawares. The apostle now gives a reason for thus defending the truth, to wit, that there were artful and wicked men who had crept into the church, pretending to be religious teachers, but whose doctrines tended to sap the very foundations of truth. The apostle Peter, describing these same persons, says, "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies." See Barnes "2 Pet 2:1".
Substantially the same idea is expressed here by saying that they "had crept in unawares;" that is, they had come in by stealth; they had not come by a bold and open avowal of their real sentiments. They professed to teach the Christian religion, when in fact they denied some of its fundamental doctrines; they professed to be holy, when in fact they were living most scan- dalous lives. In all ages there have been men who were willing to do this for base purposes.
Who were before of old ordained to this condemnation. That is, to the condemnation (krima) which he proceeds to specify. The statements in the subsequent part of the epistle show that by the word used here he refers to the wrath that shall come upon the ungodly in the future world. See Jude 1:5ff, Jude 1:15. The meaning clearly is, that the punishment which befell the unbelieving Israelites, (Jude 1:5;) the rebel angels, (Jude 1:6;) the inhabitants of Sodom, (Jude 1:7;) and of which Enoch prophesied, (Jude 1:15,) awaited those persons. The phrase of old -- palai -- means long ago, implying that a considerable time had elapsed, though without determining how much. It is used in the New Testament only in the following places: Mt 11:21, "they would have repented long ago;" Mk 15:44, "whether he had been any while dead;" Lk 10:13, they had a great while ago repented; Heb 1:1, "spake in time past unto the fathers;" 2 Pet 1:9, "purged from his old sins;" and in the passage before us. So far as this word is concerned, the reference here may have been to any former remote period, whether in the time of the prophets, of Enoch, or in eternity. It does not necessarily imply that it was eternal, though it "might apply to that, if the thing referred to was, from other sources, certainly known to have been from eternity. It may be doubted, however, whether, if the thing referred to had occurred from eternity, this would have been the word used to express it, (comp. Eph 1:4;) and it is certain that it cannot be proved from the use of this word (palai) that the "ordination to condemnation" was eternal. Whatever may be referred to by that "ordaining to condemnation," this word will not prove that it was an eternal ordination. All that is fairly implied in it will be met by the supposition that it occurred in any remote period, say in the time of the prophets. The word here rendered "before ordained": progegrammenoi, from prografw -- occurs in the New Testament only here and in the following places: Rom 15:4, twice, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning;" Gal 3:1, "Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth;" and Eph 3:3, "As I wrote afore in few words." See Barnes "Gal 3:1".
In these places there is evidently no idea implied of ordaining, or preordaining, in the sense in which those words are now commonly understood. To that word there is usually attached the idea of designating or appointing as by an arbitrary decree; but no such meaning enters into the word here used. The Greek word properly means, to write before; then to have written before; and then, with reference to time future, to post up beforehand in writing; to announce by posting up on a written tablet, as of some ordinance, law, or requirement; as descriptive of what will be, or what should be. Comp. Rob. Lexicon. Burder (in Rosenmuller's Morgenland, in loc.) remarks that "the names of those who were to be tried were usually posted up in a public place, as was also their sentence after their condemnation, and that this was denoted by the same Greek word which the apostle uses here. Eisner," says he, "remarks that the Greek authors use the word as applicable to those who, among the Romans, were said to be proscribed; that is, those whose names were posted up in a public place, whereby they were appointed to death, and in reference to whom a reward was offered to any one who would kill them." The idea here clearly is that of some such designation beforehand as would occur if the persons had been publicly posted as appointed to death. Their names, indeed, were not mentioned, but there was such a description of them, or of their character, that it was clear who were meant. In regard to the question what the apostle means by such a designation or appointment beforehand, it is clear that he does not refer in this place to any arbitrary or eternal decree, but to such a designation as was made by the facts to which he immediately refers- that is, to the Divine prediction that there would be such persons, (Jude 1:14, Jude 1:15,18; ) and to the consideration that in the case of the unbelieving Israelites, the rebel angels, and the inhabitants of Sodom, there was as clear a proof that such persons would be punished as if their names had been posted up. All these instances bore on just such cases as these, and in these facts they might read their sentence as clearly as if their names had been written on the face of the sky. This interpretation seems to me to embrace all that the words fairly imply, and all that the exigence of the case demands; and if this be correct, then two things follow:
(1.) that this passage should not be adduced to prove that God has from all eternity, by an arbitrary decree, ordained a certain portion of the race to destruction, what-ever may be true on that point; and,
(2.) that all abandoned sinners now may see, in the facts which have occurred in the treatment of the wicked in past times, just as certain evidence of their destruction, if they do not repent, as if their names were written in letters of light, and if it were announced to the universe that they would be damned.
Ungodly men. Men without piety or true religion, whatever may be their pretensions.
Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness. Abusing the doctrines of grace so as to give indulgence to corrupt and carnal propensities. That is, probably, they gave this form to their teaching, as Antinomians have often done, that by the gospel they were released from the obligations of the law, and might give indulgence to their sinful passions in order that grace might abound. Antinomianism began early in the world, and has always had a wide prevalence. The liability of the doctrines of grace to be thus abused was foreseen by Paul, and against such abuse he earnestly sought to guard the Christians of his time, Rom 6:1, seq.
And denying the only Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. See Barnes "2 Pet 2:1".
That is, the doctrines which they held were in fact a denial of the only true God, and of the Redeemer of men. It cannot be supposed that they openly and formally did this, for then they could have made no pretensions to the name Christian, or even to religion of any kind; but the meaning must be, that in fact the doctrines which they held amounted to a denial of the true God, and of the Saviour in his proper nature and work. Some have proposed to read this, "denying the only Lord God, even (kai) our Lord Jesus Christ;" but the Greek does not demand this construetion even if it would admit it, and it is most in accordance with Scripture usage to retain the common translation. It may be added, also, that the common translation expresses all that the exigence of the passage requires. Their doctrines and practice tended as really to the denial of the true God as they did to the denial of the Lord Jesus. Peter in his second epistle, (2 Pet 2:1,) has adverted only to one aspect of their doetrine -- that it denied the Saviour; Jude adds, if the common reading be correct, that it tended also to a denial of the true God. The word God (yeon) is wanting in many manuscripts, and in the Vulgate and Coptic versions, and Mill, Hammond, and Bengel suppose it should be omitted. It is also wanting in the editions of Tittman, Griesbach, and Rahn. The amount of authority seems to be against it. The word rendered Lord, in the phrase "Lord God," is despothv, despotes, and means here Sovereign, or Ruler, but it is a word which may be appropriately applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the same word which is used in the parallel passage in 2 Pet 2:1. See it explained See Barnes "2 Pet 2:1".
If the word "God" is to be omitted in this place, the passage would be wholly applicable, beyond question, to the Lord Jesus, and would mean, "denying our only Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ." It is perhaps impossible now to determine with certainty the true reading of the text; nor is it very material. Whichever of the readings is correct; whether the word (yeon) God is to be retained or not, the sentiment expressed would be true, that their doctrines amounted to a practical denial of the only true God; and equally so that they were a denial of the only Sovereign and Lord of the true Christian.
