_THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM:
IMPIOUS DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.
THE APOSTOLIC WARNING RESPECTING THEM._
"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts (and
their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing respect of
persons for the sake of advantage.
"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, walking after their own
ungodly lusts."--ST. JUDE 16-18.
These words form the second part of the threefold description of the
libertines; and just as the first part was balanced by a prophetic
warning quoted from the _Book of Enoch_, so this part is balanced by a
quotation of the prophetic warning given by the Apostles, to the
effect that persons like these ungodly men would certainly arise. This
second division more clearly corresponds to the case of Balaam
mentioned in ver. 11 than the first division of the description
corresponds to the case of Cain. This will appear when we come to
examine the details.
"These are murmurers." For the second time St. Jude points to the
intruders who are disturbing the Church, and shows his readers another
group of characteristics by which these dangerous persons, who
disgrace the name of Christian, may be known. This second group hangs
on closely to what immediately precedes. It seems to have been
suggested by the last words of the prophecy quoted from Enoch, "the
hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." The way in
which the libertines spoke hard things against God was by murmuring
against His decrees and complaining of the dispensations of His
Providence. This is the exact meaning of the word which is rendered
"complainers" (μεμψίμοιροι), and which occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament; "finding fault with their lot," _i.e._ discontented
with the condition of life which God had assigned to them, and not
only blaming Him for this, but for the moral restrictions which He had
imposed upon them and upon all mankind. Men who "walk after their
lusts," and shape their course in accordance with these (κατὰ τὰς
ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι), cannot be contented, for the means of
gratifying the lusts are not always present, and the lusts themselves
are insatiable: even when gratification is possible, it is only
temporary; the unruly desires are certain to revive and clamour once
more for satisfaction. This was notably the case with Balaam, whose
grasping cupidity chafed against the restraints which prevented it
from being gratified. As Bishop Butler says of him, "He wanted to do
what he knew to be very wicked, and contrary to the express command of
God; he had inward checks and restraints, which he could not entirely
get over; he therefore casts about for ways to reconcile this
wickedness with his duty," (_Sermon_ vii.). From a somewhat different
point of view J. H. Newman says much the same thing of him: Balaam
"would have given the world to have got rid of his duties; and the
question was, how to do so without violence" (_Plain Sermons_,
Rivingtons, 1868, vol. iv., p. 28). Isaac Williams, who has a sermon
on the same subject, puts the matter in yet another way. Balaam "knew
what was holy and good, and it may be that he loved it also, but he
loved riches more: his knowledge was with God; his will was with
Satan.... He wished to proceed together with God and Mammon--God on
his lips, and Mammon in his heart" (_The Characters of the Old
Testament_, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 128, 130). The way in which the
libertines seem to have set about the impossible task of getting rid
of their duties and reconciling the service of God with the service of
Satan appears to have been that of roundly declaring that Christian
liberty included freedom to gratify one's desires: if it did not do
so, it was an empty delusion. In this way they "turned the grace of
God into lasciviousness" (ver. 4), and "their mouth spoke great
swelling words." In the parallel passage in 2 Peter an explanation of
this kind is given of the "great swelling words." By means of them
these evil men "enticed others in the lusts of the flesh by
lasciviousness, ... _promising them liberty_" (2 Peter ii. 18, 19).
According to them, it was the magnificent privilege of Christians to
be freed from righteousness and become the slaves of sin. Irenæus
attributes doctrine of this kind to Simon Magus and his followers,
who, "as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through
His grace, and not through their own righteous acts. For righteous
actions are not such in the nature of things, but accidentally"
(_Hær._ I. xxiii. 3).
"Showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage." This, again,
is exactly what Balaam did. He had regard to Balak and the princes
whom he sent as ambassadors; and he did this because he hoped to gain
the large reward which they were told to promise him if he would but
exercise his prophetic power in solemnly cursing Israel. In like
manner these blatant profligates, who were loud in their complaints
against the treatment which they received from Providence, and equally
loud in protesting that the Gospel allowed them and others the licence
which they desired, nevertheless became mean flatterers and parasites
when there was any chance of getting anything from persons of wealth
and distinction. This apparently incongruous combination of arrogant
self-assertion with grovelling sycophancy is common enough in men
without principle, as Calvin remarks. "When there is no one to check
their insolence, or when there is nothing which stands in their way,
their pride is intolerable, so that they imperiously arrogate
everything to themselves; but they meanly flatter those whom they
fear, and from whom they expect some advantage." While they refuse
submission where it is due, they give it where it is not due. They
rebelliously reject the plain commands of God, and yet servilely
cringe to the humours and caprices of their fellow-men.
"But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before
by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Revisers have done well
to restore the "ye"--"But _ye_, beloved"--which was in all English
versions previous to that of 1611, just as in ver. 20. In both cases
the pronoun is emphatic, and places the persons addressed in marked
contrast to the ungodly men against whom they are being warned.
"Whatever they may do, do not you be deceived by their arrogant
language and time-serving conduct, for these are the scoffing
sensualists against whom you have already been warned beforehand by
the Apostles. Their behaviour is amazing, but it ought not to take you
by surprise." St. Jude evidently takes for granted that the Apostolic
warning which he quotes is well known to his readers. Such an appeal
to the authority of the Apostles would certainly be more natural in
one who was himself not an Apostle, but it must not be regarded as
quite decisive, as if St. Jude had written "how that they said to
_us_." Other reasons, however, support the impression which this
passage conveys, that the writer is not an Apostle (see pp. 372, 373).
On the other hand, there is nothing in these words to warrant the
conclusion that the writer regards the Apostles as persons who lived
long ago, or who gave this warning long ago. All that is implied is
that before these ungodly men "crept in privily" into the Church,
Apostles had foretold that such persons would arise. "In the last
time" is not St. Jude's expression, but theirs; and by it the Apostles
certainly did not mean an age remote from their own: the "last time"
had already begun when they wrote (see on 2 Tim. iii. 1, 2, in _The
Pastoral Epistles_, in this series, pp. 377, 378; and comp. 1 John
ii. 18; Heb. i. 2; 1 Peter i. 20).
"How that they said to you" may mean "how that they _used_ to say to
you" (ἔλεγον ὑμῖν), and may refer to oral teaching; but we cannot
be at all certain of this. Still less can we be certain that, if
written warnings are included or specially meant, the reference is to
2 Peter iii. 3: "knowing this first, that in the last days mockers
shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts." Both passages
may have a common source, or that in 2 Peter may be modelled upon this
one. The word for "mockers" is the same in both (ἐμπαῖκται), and it
is a very unusual word, not used by profane writers, nor anywhere else
in the New Testament; in the Septuagint it occurs only once (Isa.
iii. 4), and there apparently in the sense of "childish persons." The
Authorized Version unfortunately obscures this close connexion between
the wording of 2 Peter iii. 3, and that of this passage, by having
"scoffers" in the one, and "mockers" in the other. The particular in
which the two passages really differ must not pass without notice.
St. Jude writes, "walking after their own _ungodly_ lusts," or, more
literally, "their own lusts _of ungodlinesses_" (τῶν ἀσεβειῶν). Most
probably the genitive here is descriptive, as in James i. 24 and
ii. 4; and therefore the substitution of the adjective "ungodly" for
it in the English versions is justifiable. But it is possible that
"lusts of ungodlinesses" means that they lusted after impieties, and
therefore the rendering given in the margin of the Revised Version
should not be left unheeded. Wiclif, Purvey, and the Rhemish here
differ from other English versions, being made from later texts of the
Vulgate, which read, "_secundum desideria sua ambulantes in
impietatibus_ or _in impietate_," whereas the better text has
_impietatum_. However we translate the genitive case, we may regard
the word as an echo of the prophecy quoted from the _Book of Enoch_,
in which "ungodly" or "ungodliness" occurs with persistent iteration
(ver. 15).
The fact that this expression (τῶν ἀσεβειῶν) occurs here, but not in
the parallel verse in 2 Peter, is an indication of a much more
important difference between the two passages. In spite of the great
similarity of wording, the meaning is very different. The mockers in
each case mock at totally different things. In 2 Peter we are
expressly told that they scoffed at the belief that Christ was coming
to judge the world. "What has become of the promise of His coming?
Everything goes on just as it has done for generations." There is not
a hint of any such notion here; on the contrary, it is implied that
these libertines mocked at God's dealings with themselves, and at the
belief that the Gospel did not give them full liberty to gratify their
sensual desires. They were among those of whom it is written that
"fools make a mock at sin" (Prov. xiv. 9). By scoffing at things
sacred, and ridiculing the notion that there is any harm in
licentiousness, or anything estimable in holiness, they created a
moral atmosphere in which men sinned with a light heart, because sin
was made to look as if it were a matter of no moment, a thing to be
indulged in without anxiety or remorse. It would be more reasonable
and less reprehensible to make a mock at carnage or pestilence, and
teach men to go with a light heart into a desolating war or
plague-stricken neighbourhood. In such cases experience of the
manifest horrors would soon cure the light-heartedness. But the
horrible nature of sin is not so manifest, and with regard to _that_
experience teaches its lesson more slowly. It is like a poisoning of
the blood rather than a wound in the flesh, and may have done
incalculable mischief before any serious pain is felt, or any grave
alarm excited. Hence it is quite easy for many to "walk after their
own ungodly lusts," and at the same time "mock at sin" and its
consequences. And then the converse of the proverb becomes true, and
"sin mocks at the fools" that mocked at it--a meaning which the Hebrew
may very well have. In the margin of the Revised Version we read,
"Guilt mocketh at the foolish." As Delilah mocked at Samson, so does
sin mock at those who have been taken captive by it. There is no folly
equal to the foolhardiness of those who make light, either to
themselves or to others, of the deadly character of any form of sin.
They thereby save the tempter all trouble, and do his work themselves.
"His own iniquities shall take the wicked, and he shall be holden with
the cords of his sin. He shall die for lack of instruction; and in the
greatness of his folly he shall go astray" (Prov. v. 22, 23).