Albert Barnes Commentary Jude 1:4

"For there are certain men crept in privily, [even] they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." — Jude 1:4 (ASV)

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.