_THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.
ITS RELATION TO 2 PETER._
"For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of
old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace
of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord,
Jesus Christ."--ST. JUDE 4.
We have here the _occasion_ of the letter stated very plainly.
St. Jude was meditating a letter on a more general subject, when the
grave peril created by the anti-Christian behaviour of the persons
condemned in the text constrained him to write at once on this more
urgent topic. An insidious invasion of the Christian Church has taken
place by those who have no right to a place within it, and who
endanger its peace and purity; and he dare not keep silence. The
strong must be exhorted to withstand the evil; the weak must be
rescued from it.
These invaders are in one respect like those who are condemned in the
Epistle to the Galatians, in another respect are very unlike them.
They are "false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily"
(ii. 4); but they have come in, not "to spy out our liberty which we
have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," but to
"turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness." The troublers of the
Galatian Church were endeavouring to _contract_ Christian liberty,
whereas these ungodly men were _straining_ it to the uttermost. Both
ended in destroying it. The one turned the "freedom with which Christ
set us free" into an intolerable yoke of Jewish bondage; the other
turned it into the polluting anarchy of heathen, or worse than
heathen, licence. How utterly alien these latter are from
Christianity, or even from Judaism, is indicated by St. Jude's pointed
introduction of the pronoun "our" in two clauses in this verse:
"turning the grace of _our_ God into lasciviousness, and denying _our_
only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jehovah is "_our_ God," not
theirs; they are "without God in the world." And Christ is "_our_ only
Master and Lord," but not theirs; they have denied and rejected Him,
choosing to "walk after their own lusts" (ver. 16), rather than to
"walk even as He walked" (1 John ii. 6). They have repudiated His easy
yoke, that they may follow their own bestial desires.
Who are these "ungodly men"? Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ III. ii.
_sub fin._) thinks that St. Jude is speaking prophetically of the
abominable doctrines of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates. Some modern
writers adopt this view, with the omission of the word "prophetically,"
and thus obtain an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. If
the writer knew the teaching of Carpocrates, he cannot have been Jude
the brother of James and the brother of the Lord. The date of
Carpocrates is too uncertain to make this a perfectly conclusive
argument, even if we admit the assumption that the writer of this
Epistle _is_ alluding to his teaching; for he is sometimes placed
before Cerinthus, who was contemporary with St. John. But it may be
allowed as probably correct that St. Jude was dead before Carpocrates
was known as a teacher of Antinomian Gnosticism. There is, however,
nothing whatever to show that it is to his teaching that St. Jude is
alluding. He says nothing whatever about the _teaching_ of these
"ungodly men," who perhaps were not teachers at all; still less does
he indicate that they belonged to those Gnostics who, from the
Oriental doctrine of the absolutely evil character of matter and
everything material, drew the practical conclusion that man's material
body may be made to undergo every kind of experience, no matter how
shameless, in order that the soul may gain knowledge; that the soul is
by enlightenment too pure, and the body by nature too impure, to be
capable of pollution; that filth cannot be defiled; and that pure gold
remains pure, however often it may be plunged in filthiness. No such
doctrine is hinted at by St. Jude. Dorner, therefore, goes beyond what
is written when he says that "the persons whom Jude opposes are not
merely such as have practically swerved from the right way; they are
also teachers of error" (_Doctrine of the Person of Christ_, Intr., p.
72, Eng. Tr.: T. and T. Clark, 1861). It is more reasonable, with De
Wette, Brückner, Meyer, Kühl, Reuss, Farrar, Salmon, and others to
regard these "ungodly men" as just what St. Jude describes them, and
no more; libertines, who ought never to have been admitted into the
Church at all; who maintained that Christians were free to live lives
of gross sensuality; and who, when rebuked by the elders or other
officers of the Church for their misconduct, not only refused to
submit, but reviled those who were set over them. They were "teachers
of error," but by their bad example, not by systematic preaching. They
"screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assumptions," because
they assumed that "having been called for freedom," they might "use
their freedom for an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. v. 13), not because
they assumed that they ought to disobey the commandments of the
Creator of the material universe. And for the same reason they may be
called "libertines" on principle. When St. Jude says that they "denied
our only Master[113] and Lord, Jesus Christ," he means that they
denied Him by their lives. It is altogether unreasonable to read into
this simple phrase, which is sufficiently explained by the context, a
dogmatic denial of the Incarnation. That the germs of Antinomian
Gnosticism are here indicated may be true enough; but they have not
yet developed into a body of doctrine. Still less have those who are
tainted by these germs developed into an heretical sect.[114]
It is with the verse before us that the marked resemblance between the
Epistle of St. Jude and the central portion of the Second Epistle of
St. Peter begins; and it continues down to ver. 18. In this short
letter of twenty-five verses, only the first three and last seven
verses, _i.e._ about a third of the whole, have no intimate relations
with 2 Peter. The last word has not yet been spoken upon this
perplexing subject. The present writer confesses that he remains still
uncertain as to the true relation between the two, and that he has
inclined sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other of the two
rival hypotheses. Thus much of what he wrote on the subject more than
ten years ago may be repeated now:--
"The similarity, both in substance and wording, is so great that only
two alternatives are possible--either one has borrowed from the other,
or both have borrowed from a common source. The second alternative is
rarely, if ever, advocated; it does not explain the facts very
satisfactorily, and critics are agreed in rejecting it. But here
agreement ends. On the further question, as to which writer is prior,
there is very great diversity of opinion. One thing, therefore, is
certain, that whichever writer has borrowed, he is no ordinary
borrower. He knows how to assimilate foreign material so as to make it
thoroughly his own. He remains original, even while he appropriates
the words and thoughts of another. He controls them, not they him.
Were this not so, there would be little doubt about the matter. In any
ordinary case of appropriation, if both the original and copy are
forthcoming, critics do not doubt long as to which is the original. It
is when the copy itself is a masterpiece, as in the case of Holbein's
Madonna, that criticism is baffled. Such would seem to be the case
here; and the present writer is free to confess his own
uncertainty."[115]
Other persons are able to write with much more confidence. Dean Mansel
says, "Some eminent modern critics have attempted, on the very
precarious evidence of style, to assign the priority in time of
writing to St. Jude; but there are two circumstances which appear to
me to prove most conclusively that St. Jude's Epistle was written
after that of St. Peter, and with express reference to it. The first
is, that the evils which St. Peter speaks of as partly future St. Jude
describes as now present. The one says, 'There _shall_ be false
teachers among you' (2 Peter ii. 1; the future tense being continued
through the two following verses); the other says, 'There _are_
certain men crept in unawares.' The other circumstance is still more
to the point. St. Peter, in his Second Epistle, has the remarkable
words, 'Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers
(ἐμπαῖκται) shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts'
(iii. 3). St. Jude has the same passage, repeated almost word for
word, but expressly introduced as a citation of Apostolic language:
'But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before
by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you,
In the last time there shall be mockers (ἐμπαῖκται), walking after
their own ungodly lusts' (vv. 17, 18). The use of the plural number
(τῶν ἀποστόλων) may be explained by supposing that the writer may
also have intended to allude to passages similar in import, though
differently expressed, in the writings of St. Paul (such as 1 Tim.
iv. 1, 2; 2 Tim. iii. 1), but the verbal coincidence can hardly be
satisfactorily explained, unless we suppose that St. Jude had
principally in his thoughts, and was actually citing the language of
St. Peter" (_The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries_,
Murray, 1875, pp. 69, 70). Hengstenberg puts forward the same
arguments, and considers the second to be decisive as to the priority
of 2 Peter.
Not less confident is Archdeacon Farrar that exactly the opposite
hypothesis is the right one. "After careful consideration and
comparison of the two documents it seems to my own mind _impossible to
doubt_ [the italics are Dr. Farrar's] that Jude was the earlier of the
two writers.... I must confess my inability to see how any one who
approaches the inquiry with no ready-made theories can fail to come to
the conclusion that the priority in this instance belongs to St. Jude.
It would have been impossible for such a burning and withering blast
of defiance and invective as his brief letter to have been composed on
principles of modification and addition. All the marks which indicate
the reflective treatment of an existing document are to be seen in the
Second Epistle of St. Peter. In every instance of variation we see the
reasons which influenced the later writer.... The notion that St. Jude
endeavoured to 'improve upon' St. Peter is, I say, a literary
impossibility; and if in some instances the phrases of St. Jude seem
more antithetical and striking, and his description clearer, I have
sufficiently accounted for the inferiority--if it be inferiority--of
St. Peter by the supposition that he was a man of more restrained
temperament; that he wrote under the influence of reminiscences and
impressions; and that he was warning against forms of evil with which
he had not come into so personal a contact" (_The Early Days of
Christianity_, Cassell and Co., 1882, i., pp. 196-203).
The main arguments in favour of the view that the Second Epistle of
St. Peter was used by St. Jude, besides those stated by Dean Mansel,
are the following:--
(1) If 2 Peter is genuine, it is more probable that St. Jude should
borrow from St. Peter than that the chief of the Apostles should
borrow from one who was not an Apostle at all.
If 2 Peter is not genuine, it is improbable that the forger would
borrow from a writing which from the first was regarded with
suspicion, because it quoted apocryphal literature.
(2) St. Jude tells us (ver. 3) that he wrote under pressure to meet a
grave emergency, and therefore he would be more likely to make large
use of suitable material ready to his hand, than one who was under no
such necessity.
The main arguments on the other side are these:--
(1) It is more probable that the chief portion of a short letter
should be used again with a great deal of additional matter, than that
one section only of a much longer letter should be used again with
very little additional matter.
(2) It is more probable that the writer of 2 Peter should omit what
seemed to be difficult or likely to give offence, than that St. Jude
should insert such things; _e.g._ "_clouds_ without water" (Jude 12)
is a contradiction in terms, and therefore is naturally corrected to
"_wells_ without water" (2 Pet. ii. 17); the particular way in which
the angels fell (Jude 6), the allusion to certain Levitical pollutions
(ver. 23), and the citations from apocryphal books (vv. 9, 14, 15) are
either entirely omitted by the writer of 2 Peter, or put in a way much
less likely to seem offensive (ii. 4, 11). And Jude 9 has been so
toned down by the writer of 2 Peter that without St. Jude's statement
respecting Michael and the devil we should scarcely understand 2 Peter
ii. 11.
Besides these points, there are two arguments which are used on _both_
sides of the question:--
(i) There are certain elements in St. Jude's Epistle of which the
writer of 2 Peter would probably have made use, had he seen them;
_e.g._ the ironical play upon the word "kept" in "the angels which
_kept_ not (μὴ τηρήσαντας) their own principality.... He hath _kept_
(τετήρηκεν) in everlasting bonds;" the telling antithesis in ver.
10, that what these sinners do not know, and cannot know, they abuse
by gross irreverence; and what they know, and cannot help knowing,
they abuse by gross licentiousness; and the metaphor of "wandering
stars" (ver. 13), which would fit the false teachers, who lead others
astray, in 2 Peter, much better than the ungodly men, who are not
leaders at all, in Jude. As the writer of 2 Peter makes no use of
these points, the inference is that he had never seen them.
But, on the other hand, there are certain elements in 2 Peter of which
St. Jude would probably have made use, had he seen them; _e.g._ the
destruction of "the world of the ungodly" by the Flood; the "eyes full
of an adulteress;" and the explanation of the "great swelling words"
as "promising them liberty," which would exactly have suited
St. Jude's purpose in condemning those who turned liberty into
license. As St. Jude makes no use of these points, the inference is
that he had not seen them.
(ii) St. Jude, as will be shown presently, groups nearly everything in
threes. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that wherever he can
make a threefold arrangement he does so. Is this artificial grouping a
mark of originality or not? Some would urge that it is the writer who
is using up another's material who would be likely to add this
fanciful arrangement, and that, therefore, St. Jude is the borrower.
Others would urge that such triplets would be just the things to be
overlooked or disregarded by the borrower, and that, therefore,
St. Jude is the original.
About the existence of the triplets in Jude, and their absence in
2 Peter, there can be no question, whatever view we may hold as to
their significance. They begin in the very first verse of our Epistle,
and continue to the last verse, although those at the close of the
letter are lost in the Authorized Version, owing to the fact that the
translators used a faulty Greek text. It will be worth while to run
through them. (1) Judas, a servant ... and brother. (2) To them that
are called, beloved, ... and kept. (3) Mercy unto you and peace and
love. (4) Ungodly men, turning, ... and denying. (5) Israelites,
angels, cities of the plain. (6) Defile, ... set at nought, ... and
rail. (7) Cain, Balaam, Korah. (8) These are.... These are.... These
are.... (9) They who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit.
(10) Building up yourselves, ... praying, ... looking for the mercy,
(11) On some have mercy; ... and some save; ... and on some have mercy
with fear. (12) Before all time, and now, and for evermore.
Before parting with this verse it will be well to put readers on their
guard against a misinterpretation of the phrase, "They who were of old
set forth unto this condemnation;" a misinterpretation all the more
likely to be made by those who use the Authorized Version, which has,
"Who were before of old _ordained_ to this condemnation." The text is
a favourite one with Calvinists; but when rightly translated and
understood, it gives no support to extreme predestinarian theories.
When literally rendered it runs, "Who have been of old _written down
beforehand_ for this _sentence_;" or possibly, "Who have been written
_up_ beforehand;" for the metaphor may be borrowed from the custom of
posting up the names of those who had to appear before the court for
trial. Be this as it may, "of old" (πάλαι) cannot refer to the
eternal counsel and decree of Almighty God, but to something in human
history, something remote from St. Jude's own day, but in time, and
not in eternity. Perhaps some of the warnings and denunciations in the
prophets of the Old Testament or in the _Book of Enoch_ are in his
mind. "Condemnation" is a justifiable rendering of the Greek word
(κρίμα), because it is manifest from the context that the sentence
or judgment intended is one of condemnation, and not of acquittal; but
this word when coupled with "ordained" is likely to be grievously
misunderstood. "Ordained to condemnation" suggests with fatal facility
"predestined to damnation"--a doctrine which has perhaps been a more
fruitful cause of the rejection of Christianity than all the doctrines
included in the creeds.
Probably in all ages of the Church there have been men such as
St. Jude here describes--nominal members of the Church who are nothing
but a scandal to it, and professing Christians whose whole life is one
flagrant denial of Christ. Such persons certainly trouble Christendom
now. By their luxury and licentiousness they set an evil example and
create a pestilential moral atmosphere. They practise no self-control,
and sneer at self-denial in others. They reject all Christian
discipline, and mock at those who endeavour to maintain it. And
sometimes they are not at once recognized in their true character.
They are plausible and amusing, obviously not strict, but not
obviously scandalous in their manner of life. It is then that such men
become specially dangerous. Such may have been the case in the
Churches which St. Jude has in mind. Therefore he strips off all this
specious disguise, and describes these profligate scoffers according
to their true characters. Moreover, we must remember that there were
some, and perhaps many, who, like Simon Magus (Acts viii. 13),
accepted baptism without any real appreciation of the meaning of
Christianity, and who remained either Jews or heathen at heart, long
after they had enrolled themselves as Christians. Where dangerous
material of this kind abounded, it was necessary to put the faithful
on their guard about the danger; and hence the strength and vehemence
of St. Jude's language. A sharp, clear statement of the evil was
necessary to put the weak and the unwary on their guard against a
peril to which they might easily succumb, before they were fully aware
of its existence. We all of us need such warnings still, not merely to
form a truer estimate of the nature and tendency of certain forms of
evil, and thus keep on our guard against courting needless temptation,
but also to preserve us from becoming in our own persons, through
manifest self-indulgence and carelessness of life, a snare and a
stumbling-block to our brethren.
NOTE.--On the question as to which of the two Epistles is prior, the
opinion of scholars has been greatly divided; but a comparison of the
following lists will show that among more recent critics the decision
is commonly in favour of the priority of our Epistle:--
_For the priority of 2 Peter_: Bauer, Beausobre, Benson, Bloomfield,
Dahl, Dietlein, Dodwell, Estius, Fronmüller, Hänlein, Hengstenberg,
Heydenreich, Hofmann, Lange, Lenfant, Lumby, Luthart, Luther, Mansel,
Michaelis, Mill, Œcumenius, Pott, Schaff, Schmid, Schoff, Schulze,
Semler, Steinfass, Stier, Stolz, Storr, Thiersch, Wetstein, Wolf,
Wordsworth, Zachariæ, and others.
_For the priority of St. Jude_: Alford, Angus, Arnaud, Bleek,
Brückner, Caffin, Credner, Davidson, De Wette, Eichhorn, Ewald, F. W.
Farrar, Guerike, Hatch, Herder, Hilgenfeld, Hug, Huther, Kühl, Kurz,
Mayerhoff, Neander, Plumptre, Reuss, Salmon, Schenkel, Sieffert,
Thorold, Weiss, Wiesinger, and others. Plumptre makes the remarkable
suggestion that St. Jude may have written _both_ letters. He first
wrote his own Epistle, then was sent with it to St. Peter by
St. James, and finally acted as St. Peter's amanuensis in writing
2 Peter (_Cambridge Bible for Schools, Epistle of St. Peter and
St. Jude_, 1879, pp. 79, 80, 88, 89).
On this point also Dr. Döllinger changed his mind (see p. 31). In _The
First Age of the Church_ (pp. 93, 108, Eng. Tr., 2nd ed.) he
maintained the priority of 2 Peter. June 22nd, 1879, he wrote to me,
"Its priority to the Epistle of Jude I _cannot_ believe" (_kann ich
gar nicht glauben_).
[113] The insertion of the word "God" into the authorities followed in
the Authorized Version is one of the few instances in which it is
possible that the Greek text of the N.T. has been corrupted in the
interests of orthodoxy.
[114] See the author's _Epistles of St. John_ in the _Cambridge Greek
Testament_, pp. xx-xxix and 160-162.
[115] _N.T. Commentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott
(Cassell and Co. 1879), iii., p. 506.