Albert Barnes Commentary Jude 1

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ. If the view taken in the Introduction to the epistle is correct, Jude had a close relationship to the Lord Jesus, being, as James was, the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19). The reasons why he did not refer to this fact here, as a designation that would serve to identify him and show his authority to address others as he proposed to do in this epistle, probably were:

1. That the right to do this did not rest on his mere relationship to the Lord Jesus, but on the fact that Jesus had called certain persons to be His apostles and had authorized them to do it; and
2. That a reference to this relationship, as a ground of authority, might have created jealousies among the apostles themselves.

We may learn from the fact that Jude merely calls himself the servant of the Lord Jesus—that is, a Christian—the following:

1. That this is a distinction more to be desired than a mere natural relationship to the Savior would be; and consequently,
2. That it is a higher honor than any distinction arising from birth or family. .

And brother of James. (See Introduction, §1).

To them that are sanctified by God the Father. This means to those who are holy, or who are saints. (See Barnes on Romans 1:7; Philippians 1:1).

Though this title is general, it can hardly be doubted that he had some particular saints in view, namely, those who were exposed to the dangers to which he refers in the epistle. (See Introduction, §3). Since the epistle was probably sent to Christians residing in a certain place, it was not necessary to designate them more particularly, though it was often done. The Syriac version adds here, To the Gentiles who are called, beloved of God the Father, etc.

And preserved in Jesus Christ. (See Barnes on 1 Peter 1:5).

The meaning is that they owed their preservation entirely to Him; and if they were brought to everlasting life, it would be only by Him. What the apostle here says of those to whom he wrote is true of all Christians. They would all fall away and perish if it were not for the grace of God keeping them.

And called. Called to be saints. (See Barnes on Romans 1:7; Ephesians 4:1).

Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. This is not quite the form of salutation used by the other apostles, but it is one equally expressive of an earnest desire for their welfare. These things are mentioned as the choicest blessings which could be conferred on them: mercy—in the pardon of all their sins and acceptance with God; peace—with God, with their fellow men, in their own consciences, and in the prospect of death; and love—to God, to the fellow believers, to all the world. What blessings are there which these do not include?

Beloved. An expression of strong affection used by the apostles when addressing their brethren, Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 10:14.

1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 2 Corinthians 7:9; 2 Corinthians 12:19; Philippians 2:12; Philippians 4:1; and often elsewhere.

When I gave all diligence. When I applied my mind earnestly, implying that he had reflected on the subject and thought particularly what it would be desirable to write to them. The state of mind referred to is that of one who was purposing to write a letter and who thought over carefully what it would be proper to say. The mental process which led to writing the epistle seems to have been this:

1. For some reasons—mainly from his strong affection for them—he purposed to write to them.

2. The general subject on which he designed to write was, of course, something pertaining to the common salvation—for he and they were Christians.

3. On reflecting what particular thing pertaining to this common salvation it was best for him to write on, he felt that, in view of their peculiar dangers, it ought to be an exhortation to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to them. Macknight renders this less correctly, "Making all haste to write to you," etc. But the idea is rather that he set himself diligently and earnestly to write to them of the great matter in which they had a common interest.

To write to you of the common salvation. The salvation common to Jews and Gentiles, and to all who bore the Christian name. The meaning is that he did not think of writing on any subject pertaining to a particular class or party, but on some subject in which all who were Christians had a common interest. There are great matters of religion held in common by all Christians, and it is important for religious teachers to address their fellow Christians on those common topics. After all, they are more important than the things which we may hold as peculiar to our own party or sect, and should be more frequently dwelt upon.

It was needful for me to write to you. "I reflected on the general subject, prompted by my affectionate regard to write to you of things pertaining to religion in general, and on looking at the matter, I found there was a particular topic or aspect of the subject on which it was necessary to address you. I saw the danger in which you were from false teachers and felt it not only necessary that I should write to you, but that I should make this the particular subject of my counsels."

And exhort you. "That I should make my letter in fact an exhortation on a particular topic."

That you should earnestly contend. . The word here rendered earnestly contend—epagwnizesyai—is one of those words used by the sacred writers which have allusion to the Grecian games. (See the notes on 1 Corinthians 9:24 and following). This word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. It means to contend upon—that is, for or about anything—and would be applicable to the earnest effort put forth in those games to obtain the prize. The reference here, of course, is only to contention by argument, by reasoning, by holding fast the principles of religion, and maintaining them against all opposers. It would not justify "contention" by arms, by violence, or by persecution, for:

1. That is contrary to the spirit of true religion and to the requirements of the gospel elsewhere revealed;

2. It is not demanded by the proper meaning of the word, all that it fairly implies being the effort to maintain truth by argument and by a steady life;

3. It is not the most effectual way to maintain truth in the world to attempt to do it by force and arms.

For the faith. The system of religion revealed in the gospel. It is called faith because that is the cardinal virtue in the system and because all depends on that. The rule here will require that we should contend in this manner for all truth.

Once delivered to the saints. The word here used (apax) may mean either once for all, in the sense that it was then complete and would not be repeated; or formerly, namely, by the author of the system. Doddridge, Estius, and Beza, understand it in the former way; Macknight and others in the latter. Benson improperly supposes that it means fully or perfectly.

Perhaps the more usual sense of the word would be that it was done once in the sense that it is not to be done again, and therefore in the sense that it was then complete and that nothing was to be added to it. There is indeed the idea that it was formerly done, but with this additional thought that it was then complete. Compare, for this use of the Greek word rendered once, Hebrews 9:26–28; Hebrews 10:2; 1 Peter 3:18.

The delivering of this faith to the saints here referred to is evidently that made by revelation, or the system of truth which God has made known in His word. Everything which He has revealed, we are to defend as true. We are to surrender no part of it whatever, for every part of that system is of value to mankind. By a careful study of the Bible, we are to ascertain what that system is, and then in all places, at all times, in all circumstances, and at every sacrifice, we are to maintain it.

For there are certain men crept in unawares. The apostle now gives a reason for defending the truth in this way: namely, that there were cunning and wicked men who had crept into the church, pretending to be religious teachers, but whose doctrines tended to undermine the very foundations of truth. The apostle Peter, describing these same persons, says, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies (2 Peter 2:1). (See also the notes on 2 Peter 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 declaration of their real views. 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 scandalous lives. In all ages there have been men willing to do this for dishonest purposes.

Who were before of old ordained to this condemnation. This refers to the condemnation (Greek: krima) which the apostle proceeds to specify. The statements in the later part of the epistle show that by the word used here he refers to the wrath that will come upon the ungodly in the future world (see Jude 1:5-7, 15). The meaning clearly is that the punishment which came upon 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 these persons.

The phrase of old—Greek: palai—means long ago, implying that a considerable time had passed, though without determining how much. This word is used in the New Testament only in the following places: Matthew 11:21, they would have repented long ago;Mark 15:44, whether he had been any while dead;Luke 10:13, they had a great while ago repented;Hebrews 1:1, spake in time past unto the fathers; 2 Peter 1:9, purged from his old sins; and in the passage before us.

As 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 ; 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, for example, in the time of the prophets.

The word translated here as before ordained (Greek: progegrammenoi, from prographō) occurs in the New Testament only here and in the following places: Romans 15:4, twice, Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning;Galatians 3:1, Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth; and Ephesians 3:3, As I wrote afore in few words. (See the notes on Galatians 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, the idea of designating or appointing by an arbitrary decree is usually attached, but no such meaning is part of the word used here. The Greek word properly means to write before; then to have written before; and then, with reference to future time, to post up beforehand in writing, to announce by posting up on a written tablet, as of some ordinance, law, or requirement, descriptive of what will be or what should be. (Compare Robinson’s Lexicon.)

Burder (in Rosenmüller’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, he says, remarks that 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, by which they were appointed to death, and in reference to whom a reward was offered to anyone who would kill them. The idea here clearly is that of a designation beforehand, similar to what 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 was meant. Regarding the question of 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. Instead, he refers 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, 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 related to cases just like 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 requirements of the case demand. If this is correct, then two things follow:

1. That this passage should not be brought forward to prove that God has from all eternity, by an arbitrary decree, ordained a certain portion of the race to destruction, whatever 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 it were announced to the universe that they would be damned.

Ungodly men. These are men without piety or true religion, whatever their pretensions may be.

Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness. This means abusing the doctrines of grace so as to give indulgence to corrupt and carnal desires. That is, they probably shaped their teaching, as Antinomians have often done, to claim that the gospel released them from the obligations of the law, allowing them to indulge their sinful passions so that grace might abound. Antinomianism began early in the world and has always been widespread. Paul foresaw the likelihood of the doctrines of grace being abused in this way, and he earnestly sought to guard the Christians of his time against such abuse (Romans 6:1 and following).

And denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (See the notes on 2 Peter 2:1.)

That is, the doctrines they held were in fact a denial of the only true God and of the Redeemer of humanity. It cannot be supposed that they did this openly and formally, for then they could have made no claim to the name Christian, or even to religion of any kind. Instead, the meaning must be that, in fact, the doctrines 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 as, “denying the only Lord God, even (Greek: kai) our Lord Jesus Christ.” However, the Greek does not demand this construction, even if it would admit it, and it is most in accordance with scriptural usage to retain the common translation. It may also be added that the common translation expresses all that the requirements of the passage demand.

Their doctrines and practice tended as truly to the denial of the true God as they did to the denial of the Lord Jesus. Peter, in his second epistle (2 Peter 2:1), has referred only to one aspect of their doctrine—that it denied the Saviour. Jude adds, if the common reading is correct, that it also tended to a denial of the true God.

The word God (Greek: Theon) is missing in many manuscripts and in the Vulgate and Coptic versions; Mill, Hammond, and Bengel suppose it should be omitted. It is also missing in the editions of Tittman, Griesbach, and Rahn. The weight of authority seems to be against it. The word translated Lord in the phrase “Lord God” is despotēs (Greek: δεσπότης), and here means Sovereign or Ruler; it is a word that may be appropriately applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the same word used in the parallel passage in 2 Peter 2:1. (See the explanation in the notes on 2 Peter 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 God (Greek: Theon) is to be retained or not, the meaning 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.

I will therefore put you in remembrance. "To show you what must be the doom of such men, I will call certain facts to your recollection, with which you are familiar, concerning the Divine treatment of the wicked in times past."

Though you once knew this. That is, you were formerly made acquainted with these things, though they may not now be fresh in your recollection.

On the different meanings attached to the word once in this passage, see Bloomfield, Crit. Digest, in loc.

What seems to have been in the apostle's mind was an intention to call to their recollection facts with which they had formerly been familiar, about which there was no doubt, and which bore on the case before him. This is similar to what we often endeavour to do in an argument—to remind a person of some fact they once knew very well, and which bears directly on the case.

How that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt. (See Barnes on 1 Corinthians 10:6–12).

The relevance of this fact to the case Jude was considering seems to have been this: just as those who had been delivered from Egypt were afterward destroyed for their unbelief (or, as the mere fact of their being rescued did not prevent destruction from coming upon them),

so the fact that these persons seemed to be delivered from sin and had become professed followers of God would not prevent their being destroyed if they led wicked lives.

It might rather be inferred from the example of the Israelites that they would be.

Afterward. to deuteron the second; that is, the second thing in order, or again. The expression is unusual in this sense, but the apostle seems to have focused his mind on this event as a second great and important fact concerning them. The first was that they were delivered; the second, that they were destroyed.

Destroyed them that believed not. That is, on account of their unbelief. They were not permitted to enter the promised land, but were cut off in the wilderness. (See Barnes on Hebrews 3:16-19).