JUDE, EPISTLE OP

question whether the traitor ' went out ' after It or before it. From Lk 22i'-2i jt has been argued that he was present, but St. Luke's arrangement is different from that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who put the institution after the announcement of the Betrayal (Mt 262i-2»« Mk 14»8-2B). According to St. John's account, Judas seems to have gone out immediately after the announce-ment, the institution following 13", and oh. 14 being the Communion Address. David Smith.

JUDE, EPISTLE OP.— This short epistle is an earnest warning and appeal, couched in vivid and picturesque language, addressed to a church or a circle of churches which have become suddenly exposed to a mischievous attack of false teaching.

1. Contents.— (1) Text — For its length Jude offers an unusual number of textual problems, the two most important of which are in v.*- and vv.^^m. Though the RV is probably right in translating 'Lord* In v.^, many ancient authorities read 'Jesus.* Also, the position of 'once' is doubtful, some placing it in the following clause. In vv.^*- m editors differ as to whether there are two clauses or three. The RV, following the Sinaitic, has three; and Weymouth also, who, however, follows A in his 'resultant' text based on a consensus of editorial opinion. But there is much in favour of a two-claused sentence beginning with either 'have mercy' or 'refute.'

(2) Outline. —

(i.) Salutation, w.*- K The letter opens moat appro-priately with the prayer that mercy, peace, and love may increase among the readers, who are guarded by the love of God unto the day when Jesus Christ will appear.

(ii.) Occasion of the Epistle, w.*- ^. With affectionate greetmg Jude informs his readers that he was engaeed upon an epistle setting forth the salvation held by alTCnTistians — Jews and Gentiles — when he was surprised by news which showed him that their primary need was warning and ex-hortation; for the one gospel which has been entrusted to the keeping of the 'saints 'had been endangered in their case by a surreptitious invasion of false teachers, who turned the gospel of grace into a plea for lust, thereby practically denying the lordsliip of Jesus Christ. It had long been foretold that the Church would be faced by this crisis through these persons. (This was a common expectation in the Apostolic age; see 2 Th 28, 1 Ti 4i, 2 Ti S^'- 4>, 2 P 3', Mt 24"- «.)

(iii.) Warnings from history, w.^-^. Versed as they are in Scnpture, they should take warning from the judgments of God under the Old Covenant. His people were destroyed for apostasy, though they had lately been savedfrom Egypt. Even angeb were visited with eternal punishment for break-ing bounds, and for fornication like that for which after-wards the cities of the plain perished. These are all awful examples of tlie doom that awaits those guilty of apostasy and sensuality.

(iv.) Description of the invaders, w.^-'^. Boasting of their own knowledge through visions, these false teachers abandon themselves to sensuality, deny retribution, and scoff at the power of a spiritual world. Yet even Michael the archangel, when contending with Satan for the body of MOses. did not venture to dispute his function as Accuser, but left him and his blasphemies to a higher tribunal. But these persons, professing a knowledge of the spiritual realm of which they are really ignorant, have no other knowledge than that of sensual passion like the beasts, and are on their way to ruin. Sceptical Uke Cain, greedy inciters to lust like Balaam, rebellioiis like Korah, they are j^lunging into de-struction. Would-be shepherds, they sacrilegiously pollute the love-feas1»; delusive prophets, hopelessly dead in sin, shameless in their apostasy, theirs is the doom foretold by Enoch on the godless. They murmur against their fate, which they have brought upon themselves by lewd-ness, and they bluster, though on occasion they cnnge for their own advantage.

(v.) The conduct of the Christian in this crisia, w.^'-^. The Church need not be surprised by this attack, since it was foretold by the Apostles as a sign of the end, but should resist the disintegrating influence of these es^ent^lly un-spiritual persons. The unity of the Church is to be pre-served by mutual edification in Divine truth, by grayer through the indwelling Spirit, by keeping within the range of Divine love, and by watching for the day *'hen Christ will come in mercy aa Judge. Waverera must be merci-

JUDE, EPISTLE OF

fully dealt with; even the sensual are not past hope, though the work of rescue is very dangerous.

(vi.) Doxology, w.**- s*. God alone, who can ^ard the waverer from stumbling, and can remove the stains of sin and perfect our salvation through Jesus Christ, is worthy of all glory.

2. Situation of the readers. — The recipients of Jude may have belonged to one church or to a circle of churches in one district. They were evidently Gentiles, and of some standing (vv.»- '). The Epistle affords very little evidence for the locality of the readers, but Syria or the Hellenistic cities of Palestine seem to suit the conditions. Syria would be a likely field for a distortion of the Pauline gospel of grace (v.*). Also, if Jude was the brother of James of Jerualem, whose influences extended throughout Palestine and probably Syria (Gal 2'- "), the address in v.' la explained. Syria was a breeding-ground for those tendencies which developed into the Gnostic systems of the 2nd century. Even as early as 1 Cor. ideas similar to these were troubling the Church (1 Co S'" 11'™), and when the Apocalypse was written the churches of Asia were dis-tressed by the Nicolaitans and those who, like Balaam, led the IsraeUtes into idolatrous fornication (Rev if- '■ "■ "). In 3 Jn. there is further evidence of insubordi-nation to Apostolic authority. New esoteric doctrine, fornication, and the assumption of prophetic power within the Church for the sake of personal aggrandize-ment, are features common to all. Jude differs in not mentioning idolatry. Possibly magic played no in-considerable part in the practice of these libertines. We know that it met the gospel early in its progress (Ac 8»-« 13'-" 19"- "). There is, however, no trace in Jude of a highly elaborated speculative system Uke those of the 2nd cent. Gnosticism. These persons deny the gospel by their Uves, — a practical rather than an intellectual revolt against the truth. The inference from vv.'-' is that these errorists would not refuse to acknowledge the OT as a source of instruction; being in this also unlike Gnostics of the 2nd century. The phenomenon, as it is found in Jude, is quite explicable in the last quarter of the 1st century.

3. Authorship. — The author of this Epistle is very susceptible to literary Influence, especially that of Paul. Compare Jude > with 1 Th 1', 2 Th 2"; Jude "• '» with 1 Co 2"; Jude »• » with Ro 5= S", Col 2'; Jude "■ » with Ro 16»-", Col 1»; and with the Pastoral Epistles frequently, e.g., 1 TI 1»- " 5« 6', 2 TI 3"- «• '« 4«-. His relation to 2 Peter is so close that one probably borrowed from the other, though there is great diversity of opinion as to which. See Petee [Second Ep. of], 4. (e). Bigg suggests ' that the errors denounced in both Epistles took their origin from Corinth, that the disorder was spreading, that St. Peter took alarm and wrote his Second Epistle, sending a copy to St. Jude with a warn-ing of the urgency of the danger, and that St. Jude at once issued a similar letter to the churches in which he was personally interested.' Jude is also unique In the NT in his use of apocryphal writings — the Assumption of Moses in v.', and the Book of Enoch In vv.'- "• "-^ almost In the same way as Scripture.

The Jude who writes cannot be the Apostle Judas (Lk 6", Ac 1"), nor does he ever assume Apostolic authority. James (v.') must be the head of the Jeru-salem Church, and the brother of our Lord. Jude probably called himself 'servant' and not 'brother' of Jesus Christ (Mt 13", Mk 6»), because he felt that his unbelief In Jesus in the days of His flesh did not make that term a title of honour, and he may have come to understand the truth that faith, not blood, constitutes true kinship with Christ. The difficulty of accounting for the choice of such a pseudonym, and the absence from the letter of any substantial ImprobabiUty against the traditional view, make it reasonable to hold that Jude the brother of our Lord was the author. He may have written it between a.d. 75 and 80, probably before

503