_DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION.
THREE PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN._
"Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things
once for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people out of the
land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not. And
angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper
habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities
about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to
fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an
example, suffering the punishment of eternal
fire."--ST. JUDE 5-7.
With these three verses the main portion of the Epistle begins, the
first three verses being introductory. These put before us three
instances of Divine vengeance upon those who were guilty of grievous
sin--the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness, the impure angels,
and the inhabitants of the cities of the plain; and in the three
verses which follow (8-10) St. Jude points out the similarity between
the offences of these wicked persons and the offences of the
libertines who are provoking God to execute similar vengeance upon
them. It is quite possible that we have here the explanation of the
words, "Who were of old set forth unto this condemnation" (ver. 4).
The doom of these impious profligates has long since been written in
the doom of those who sinned in a similar manner.
The Greek text of the opening verse exhibits a great variety of
readings, and one may suspect with Westcott and Hort that there has
been some primitive error, and that none of the existing readings are
correct. Of the points in which they differ from one another three
require notice:--
(1) In the words, "The Lord, having saved a people out of the land of
Egypt," the authorities vary between "the Lord" (with or without the
article), "God," and "Jesus." This last is far the best attested (AB,
the best cursives, the Vulgate, both Egyptian Versions, both Ethiopic,
the margin of the Armenian, and several Fathers); but the internal
evidence against it is immense. Nowhere else in Scripture is Jesus
said to be the Author of anything which took place before the
Incarnation. Had St. Jude written "Christ," we might have compared
"the rock was Christ" (1 Cor. x. 4). But the general adoption of the
reading "Jesus" shows how completely in Christian thought and language
the Man Jesus had become identified with the Eternal Son. If "Lord" be
correct (κύριος, without the article), it should be understood as
meaning Jehovah; and therefore "God," though not likely to be right as
the reading, is right as an interpretation. In the Latin translation
of the _Hypotyposeis_ of Clement of Alexandria we have these two
readings combined, _Dominus Deus_, and the Greek of Didymus has "Lord
Jesus" combined. Possibly all three readings are insertions, and
should be omitted, the true text being simply, "He who saved a people
out of the land of Egypt" (ὁ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας).[116]
(2) In the words, "Though ye know all things once for all," some
authorities, which were followed by the translators of 1611, have
"this" for "all things," while one authority makes "all" to be
masculine instead of neuter (πάντας for πάντα). This last _may_ be
correct, for the final letter of the masculine might easily be lost
(especially in front of ὅτι); and in that case the meaning would be,
"though ye all know it," _i.e._, "know what I am going to point out."
There is a similar confusion of reading in 1 John ii. 20, where for
"Ye know all things" (οἴδατε πάντα) we should perhaps read, "Ye all
know" (οἴδατε πάντες). But here the masculine has too little support
to be adopted.
(3) The Sinaitic MS. transposes the "once" or "once for all" (ἅπαξ)
from "know" to "saved," and makes it answer to the "afterwards," or
"the second time" (τὸ δεύτερον) which follows. In this it is supported
by the Armenian Version and a single cursive of the fourteenth
century.[117] If it were adopted, the sentence would run thus: "Now I
desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things, how that
the Lord, having _once_ saved a people out of the land of Egypt,
_afterwards_ destroyed them that believed not." The correspondence
between "once" and "afterwards"--"having _a single time_ saved, ...
_the second time_ He destroyed"--is at first sight attractive; but it
is precisely this superficial attractiveness which has caused the
corruption of the text. A recent writer pleads for its adoption, but
his reasons are not convincing.[118] The external evidence against the
proposed transposition is enormous; and there is no strong internal
evidence against the best-attested text (as there is against the
reading "Jesus") to turn the scale. "Though ye know all this _once for
all_" makes excellent sense; and so also does "He who saved a people
out of Egypt, _the second time_ (viz. in the wilderness) destroyed
them that believed not."
This collection of various readings, out of which it is impossible to
select the true text with anything like certainty, is worth
remembering in considering the theory of _verbal_ inspiration. If
every word that St. Jude wrote was supernaturally dictated, why has
not every word been supernaturally preserved? It is manifest that God
has not, either miraculously or in any other way, secured that the
exact words written by St. Jude should come down to us without
alteration. The alterations are so ancient, so widely diffused, and so
numerous, that we are unable to decide what St. Jude's exact words
were. We are not even certain that among the numerous variations we
have got his exact words. This is not a common case. The usual
problem, when various readings occur, is to select the right reading
out of several that have been handed down to us, there being no reason
to doubt that one of them is the original reading of the autograph.
But there are a few passages, and this is one of them, where one may
reasonably doubt whether the original reading has not been altogether
lost (Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32 [comp. Heb. xi. 4]; xix. 40; xxvi. 28;
Rom. xv. 32; 1 Cor. xii. 2; Col. ii. 18, 23; Heb. iv. 2; x. 1; 1 Tim.
vi. 7; 2 Tim. i. 13; 2 Peter iii. 10, 12; Jude 22, 23). This result
might easily be produced through an error in the earliest copies made
from the original document, or through a slip made by the amanuensis
who wrote the original document. There are minds to which this
supposition is very repugnant; and there are writers who assure us
that in Biblical criticism "_conjectural emendation_ must never be
resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty," or that
"conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field." But if
the whole of an Apostolic Epistle may have been lost (1 Cor. v. 9;
3 John 9), why may not a word or two of an extant Epistle have been
lost? And is it quite natural that there should sometimes be a doubt
as to _which_ of several existing readings is the original, and yet
quite inconceivable that there should ever be a doubt as to whether
_any_ of them is original? In either case we are left in uncertainty
as to the precise words which are inspired; and we are thus confronted
with the perplexing result that the Almighty has specially guided a
writer to use certain words and phrases, to the exclusion of all
others, and yet from very early times has, in not a few cases, allowed
Christians to be in doubt as to what these exact words and phrases
are. Have we any right to assume that there was this special Divine
care to produce a particular wording, when it is quite manifest that
there has not been special Divine care to preserve a particular
wording?
The theory of verbal inspiration imports unnecessary and insuperable
difficulties into the already sufficiently difficult problem as to the
properties of inspired writings. It maintains that "the line can never
rationally be drawn between the thoughts and words of Scripture;"
which means that the only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew
and Greek wording which was used by the authors of the different books
in the Bible. Consequently all who cannot read these are cut off from
the inspired Word; for the inspired thoughts are, according to this
theory, inseparably bound up with the original form of words. But if
it is the thought, and not the wording, that is inspired, then the
inspired thought may be as adequately expressed in English or German
as in Hebrew or Greek. It is the inspired thought, no matter in what
language expressed, which comes home to the hearts and consciences of
men, and convinces them that what is thus brought to them by a human
instrument is indeed in its origin and in its power Divine. "Never
_man_ thus spake" was said, not of the choice language that was used,
but of the meaning which the language conveyed.
In the passage before us there are several points which call for
attention, most of which are independent of the differences of reading.
It may be doubted whether the participle (εἰδότας) is rightly rendered
"_though_ ye know all things once for all." It makes good, and perhaps
better sense to understand it in the equally possible signification of
"_because_ ye know all things once for all." Their being already in
full possession of a knowledge of Old Testament history is the
reason why St. Jude need do no more than remind them of one or two
particulars which throw a terrible light upon the position of those
whose conduct is being discussed. That "once" here does not mean
"formerly," as the Authorized Version takes it, "though ye _once knew_
this," is manifest to every one who knows the meaning of the participle
and adverb here used (εἰδότας ἅπαξ). Nor is there much doubt that both
here and in ver. 3 it does mean "once for all." This Greek adverb,
like its Latin equivalent _semel_, is sometimes "used of what is so
done as to be of perpetual validity and never need repetition." It is
twice so used in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "For as touching those
who were _once_ enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift" (vi. 4);
_i.e._ once for all enlightened, so that no second enlightenment is
possible. And again, "Because the worshippers, having been _once_
cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins" (x. 2). So also
in 1 Peter: "Because Christ also died for sins _once_" (iii. 18). The
meaning is similar in both the passages here (vv. 3 and 5). The Gospel
was once for all delivered by the Apostles to the Church; for there
can be no second Gospel. And this Gospel Christians receive and know
once for all.
Doubt has been raised as to the event or events to which St. Jude
refers in the words "afterward destroyed them that believed not."
Hofmann, Schott, and others, adopting the best-attested reading,
"_Jesus_, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward
destroyed them that believed not," interpret the latter clause of the
destruction of Jerusalem or of the overthrow of the Jewish nation. It
is felt that this makes a very unnatural contrast with the deliverance
of Israel from Pharaoh by the hand of Moses, and therefore "saved a
people out of the land of Egypt" has to be interpreted to mean "the
redemption from the bondage-house of the Law and of sin wrought in
Israel and for Israel by Christ's act of salvation" (Schott, Erlangen,
1863, p. 225). This is very forced and improbable. Let us hold by
Hooker's "most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture,
that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the
letter is commonly the worst" (_Eccl. Pol._ V. lix. 2). The literal
construction of "saved a people out of the land of Egypt" will
certainly stand here, and the words must be understood of the passage
of the Red Sea and all that accompanied that event. This is the clause
of which the meaning is plain, and it must be the interpreter of the
clause of which the meaning is less plain: to work backwards from the
latter is singularly unreasonable. The "saving" being understood of
the deliverance of the Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, the
"destroying" is most naturally understood of the overthrow of these
same Israelites in the wilderness; not of any one catastrophe, such as
followed the matter of Korah (Num. xvi. 49) or of Baal-peor (xxv.),
but of the gradual destruction, during the forty years of wandering,
of the rebellious and unbelieving, "whose carcases fell in the
wilderness. And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His
rest, but to them that were disobedient? And we see that they were not
able to enter in _because of unbelief_" (Heb. iii. 17-19). It is quite
unnecessary to add to this, with Fronmüller, the Babylonish captivity,
as if "afterward" or "the second time" (τὸ δεύτερον) referred to _two
destructions_. It refers to two Divine acts--one of mercy, and a
second of judgment.
"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their
proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds." This is
St. Jude's second instance of God's vengeance upon gross sin, and this
and the next are common to both Epistles. For the destruction of the
unbelieving Israelites 2 Peter has the Deluge. The Revised Version has
several improvements here. It substitutes "principality" for "first
estate," in harmony with other passages, where the same word occurs
(Rom. viii. 38; Eph. iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16; ii. 10, 15), and
inserts "own"--"their _own_ principality" (τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν); thereby
marking the difference between "own" and "proper"--"their _proper_
habitation" (τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον). Above all, it preserves St. Jude's
irony in the double use of the word "kept" (τηρεῖν): "angels which
_kept_ not their own principality.... He hath _kept_ in everlasting
bonds;" which is destroyed in the Authorized Version by the
substitution of "reserved" for the second "kept." The alteration of
"chains" into "bonds" is of less moment; but it is worth while marking
the difference between two Greek words (ἅλυσις and δεσμός), both of
which are frequent in the New Testament, and of which the former is
always used in a literal sense (Mark v. 3, 4; Luke viii. 29; Acts
xii. 6, 7; etc.), and the other sometimes literally (Luke viii. 29;
Acts xvi. 26; xxiii. 29; etc.), and sometimes metaphorically (Mark
vii. 35; Luke xiii. 16; Philem. 13). It is the latter which is used
here.
It may be regarded as certain that this passage does not refer to the
original rebellion of the angels, and their fall from being heavenly
powers to being spirits of evil and of darkness. Nor is it a _direct_
reference to the Rabbinic interpretation of "the sons of God saw the
daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all
that they chose" (Gen. vi. 2, where the best texts of the Septuagint
have "angels of God" for "sons of God"). Much more probably it is a
reference to a topic which is very prominent in the _Book of Enoch_,
which, however, in this particular is based upon the common
interpretation of the passage in Genesis. A discussion of this most
interesting and perplexing writing is reserved for a later chapter. At
present it suffices to say that the work is a composite one, written
at different times and by different authors, and that the allusions to
it here, and the quotation from it in vv. 14 and 15, are from the
first portion of the _Book of Enoch_ (chapters i.-xxxvi.), which,
together with the last portion (chapters lxxii.-cv.), may safely be
considered as the original writing, and undoubtedly pre-Christian.
Whether any of the book was composed in the Christian era is doubtful,
and that any of it was written by a Christian is very doubtful indeed.
Hofmann, Philippi, and Weisse have not succeeded in persuading many
people that the whole work is of Christian origin. The portion of
which St. Jude makes use may, with a good deal of probability, be
assigned to the latter part of the second century before Christ. A
sketch of the section respecting the sin of the angels will throw much
light on the passage before us. A portion of it had long been known
through two considerable extracts, which the Byzantine writer Georgius
Syncellus (_c._ A.D. 800) makes from it in his _Chronographia_ (pp.
20-23 and 40-42, Dindorf's ed., Bonn, 1829). The quotation in our
Epistle and those made by Syncellus constituted all that was known of
the _Book of Enoch_ in Europe until 1773, when the English traveller
Bruce brought home three MSS. of an Ethiopic version of the whole
which was still extant in the Abyssinian Church.
The section about the sin of the angels and their punishment
(vii.-xxxvi.) begins very abruptly after a short introduction
(i.-vi.), in which Enoch blesses the righteous, and states that he
received a revelation from the angels in heaven. "And it came to pass,
when the sons of men had multiplied, that daughters were born to them,
very beautiful. And the angels, the sons of heaven, desired them, and
were led astray after them, and said to one another, Let us choose for
ourselves wives of the daughters of the men of the earth." Two hundred
of them then made a conspiracy, and went down to the earth, and begat
an offspring of giants. They imparted a knowledge of sorcery and many
baneful arts; and the corruption thus diffused, and the voracity and
violence of their offspring, produced the evils which preceded the
Deluge. Then the sinful angels are sentenced by the Almighty, and
Enoch is commissioned to make the sentence known to them. "Then the
Lord said to me, Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go tell the watchers
of heaven, _who have deserted the lofty sky, and their holy
everlasting station_, who have been polluted with women, ... that on
earth they shall never obtain peace and remission of sin." The fallen
angels persuade Enoch to intercede for them; but his intercession is
not heard, and he is told to repeat the sentence which has been
pronounced upon them. The following particulars of their punishment
are of interest. Azâzêl (comp. Lev. xvi. 26, R.V.), one of the
ringleaders, is to be _bound hand and foot_, thrown into a pit in the
wilderness, and _covered with darkness_; there he is to remain, with
his face covered, _till the great day of judgment_, when he is to be
cast into the fire. The others, after they have seen their offspring
kill one another in mutual slaughter, are to be _bound for seventy
generations underneath the earth, till the day of their judgment_,
when they shall be thrown into the lowest depths of the fire, and be
_shut up for ever_ (x. 6-9, 15, 16). "Judgment has been passed upon
you: your prayer shall not be granted you. From henceforth never shall
you ascend to heaven. He hath said that on the earth _He will bind
you, as long as the world endures_" (xiv. 2). And Enoch is afterwards
shown their punishment in a vision. "These are those of the stars
which have transgressed the commandment of the most high God, and _are
here bound, until the infinite number of the days of their crimes be
completed_.... Why art thou alarmed and amazed at this terrific place,
at the sight of this place of suffering? This is _the prison of the
angels; and here are they kept for ever_" (xxi. 3, 6).
It is specially worthy of remark that it is in these older portions of
the _Book of Enoch_ that we meet for the first time in Jewish
literature with the distinct conception of a general judgment. The
idea is very frequent, and is expressed in a great variety of ways.
Thus, what St. Jude calls "the Judgment of the Great Day" (κρίσιν
μεγάλης ἡμέρας), a phrase which occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament, is called in the _Book of Enoch_ "the Great Day of
Judgment" (x. 9), "the Day of the Great Judgment" (xciii. 8;
xcvii. 15; civ. 3), "the Day of the Great Trouble" (xcix. 5), "the
Great Day" (xvi. 2); "the Great Judgment" (xxii. 5), "the General
Judgment" (xxii. 9).[119] St. Jude of course need not have derived
this idea from the _Book of Enoch_; but the fact that it is so very
frequent there, especially in connexion with the sin of the impure
angels, may have influenced him in writing the passage before us. At
any rate all these numerous details will not leave us in much doubt as
to the origin of St. Jude's statement, "angels which kept not their
own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in
everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
It comes either directly from the _Book of Enoch_, or from a source of
which both the writer of the book and St. Jude make use.
It was "in like manner with these" angels that the inhabitants of
Sodom and Gomorrah sinned, going astray after unlawful and unnatural
indulgences; and "in like manner with these" angels, they also "are
set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire."
The meaning is not quite clear, but apparently it is this, that the
sinful angels are in prison awaiting the day of judgment, when they
will be cast into the lake of fire; and that the destruction of the
cities of the plain by fire, and their perpetual submersion, are an
example of the eternal fire in which the angels will be submerged.
Perhaps there is also the idea that under the Dead Sea volcanic fires
are burning. It is quite possible to take "of eternal fire" after
"example" instead of after "punishment;" and this rendering makes the
statement more in accordance with the actual facts: "are set forth as
an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment." But the two last
words come in rather awkwardly at the end of the sentence, and most
commentators decide against this construction (comp. 3 Macc. ii. 5).
The three cases exhibit, not a climax, but great diversity, as regards
persons, sin, and punishment. We have both Jews and Gentiles, and
between them beings superior to both. The Israelites by unbelief
rejected their promised home, and perished slowly in the wilderness.
The angels left their proper home, sinned grossly, and are in
banishment and in prison, awaiting still worse punishment. The men of
Sodom and Gomorrah sinned grossly in their home, and both they and it
were suddenly, horribly, and irrevocably destroyed. This great
diversity gives point to the moral. No matter who may be the sinners,
or what the circumstances of the sin, outrageous offences, such as
impurity and rebellion, are certain of Divine chastisement.
If fallen angels are evil spirits actively compassing the ruin of
souls, how can fallen angels be "kept in everlasting bonds unto the
judgment of the great day"? More than one answer might be given to
this question, but the reserve of Scripture on the subject seems to
warn us from unprofitable speculation. Even without Scripture the
reality of spiritual powers of evil may be inferred from their
effects. Scripture seems to tell us that some of these powers are
personal, and some not, that some are more free than others, and that
all shall be defeated at last. That is enough for our comfort,
warning, and assurance. It consoles us to know that much of the evil
within us is no part of ourselves, but comes from without. It makes us
wary to know that such powers are contending against us. It gives us
confidence to know that even Satan and his hosts can be overcome by
those who resist steadfast in the faith.[120]
[116] W. & H. point out
that ΟΤΙΟ = ὅτι ὁ might easily be corrupted
into ΟΙΤΙ̅Ϲ̅ = ὅτι ἰησοῦς,
or into ΟΤΙΚ̅Ϲ̅ = ὅτι κύριος.
(vol. ii., p. 106. See also Scrivener, 3rd ed., p. 656).
[117] The Latin translation of Clement of Alexandria has the same
reading: "_Quoniam Dominus Deus semel populum de terra Ægypti liberans
deinceps eos, qui non crediderunt, perdidit_."
[118] W. S. Wood, _Problems in the N.T._ (Rivingtons, 1890), pp.
161-164.
[119] Stanton, _The Jewish and the Christian Messiah_ (T. and T.
Clark, 1886), pp. 139, 140. He seems, however, to be mistaken in
saying that "the Judge is not the Messiah," but Jehovah. As in
Scripture, _both_ are represented as judging. "Then the Lord of the
spirits made to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect One, who
shall judge all the works of the holy.... And when He shall lift up
His countenance to judge their secret way in the word of the Name of
the Lord of spirits," etc. (lx. 10-11. Comp. John v. 22).
[120] On the fall of the angels see Hooker, _Eccl. Pol._ I. iv. 3, and
V. Appendix i. 28. For a modern and poetical rendering of what is
stated in Gen. vi. 1, 2, see Byron, _Heaven and Earth: a Mystery_.