Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle of Jude. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Jude 17-25
17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.
24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
The verses above bring us to the end of the Epistle. We’ll start in verses 17 and 18, looking in the Pulpit Commentaries:
A direct appeal is now introduced to the readers. Its object is to save them from being disconcerted by the rise of these impious men or beguiled by their pretensions. They are reminded, therefore, of apostolic words, by which from the beginning they had been taught to anticipate such perils and to be on their guard against them. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were (or, have been) spoken before of (i.e. by) the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Revised Version rightly restores the rendering “but ye, beloved,” which the Authorized Version dropped. The older versions, Wickliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, the Rhemish, agree in introducing this emphatic “ye,” which sets the readers in sharpest contrast to these “murmurers,” and gives greater point to Jude’s appeal. The teaching of the apostles on the subject in hand is referred to as something by no means strange to them. The terms would naturally suggest that the readers had been themselves hearers of the apostles. They are not decisive, however, of the question whether oral or written communications, direct or indirect instructions, are in view. The indeterminate sense of the term “apostle,” and the general tenor of the reference, make it impossible to say that Jude ranks himself here among the twelve. The sentence would be more natural on the lips of one who was not himself an apostle. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. The Revised Version is more literally true to the original in giving this the direct form, how that they said, to you, In the last time there shall be mockers, etc. This does not necessarily imply, however, that written words are referred to, or that a quotation is being made. The tense of the verb, “said,” by which the words are introduced, points the other way. It means that they were in the way of saying such things, and makes it probable, therefore, that Jude refers to the substance of what the apostles were in the habit of saying about the future in their ordinary preaching and teaching. Christ’s own prophecies on the subject of the end (Matthew 24:1-51, Matthew 25:1-46) would form the text for such declarations. We have examples of these apostolic predictions in the case of Paul (Acts 20:29; 2 Timothy 3:1), in that of John (1 John 2:18), in that of Peter (2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:3). The last resembles the present passage most closely, the same unusual word for “mockers,” or “scoffers,” being common to both. The stress of the statement is again on the sensual impiety of these men, as appears from the strong and peculiar phrase with which the prediction closes, “walking after their own lusts of ungodliness”. By “the last time” (with which compare the expressions in 1 Peter 1:5, 1Pe 1:20; 2 Peter 3:3; Hebrews 1:1, etc.) is meant the time which closes the present order of things, and ushers in Christ’s return. It was a Hebrew idea that time was divided into two great periods—” this age” and “the age to come,” which were parted by the coming of Messiah. The “age to come,” or the Messianic age, was in principle introduced by Messiah’s first advent, but it was to be finally brought in by his second advent—an event conceived to be near. The time which heralded the conclusive termination of the one period and entrance of the other was “the last time”—a time of evils and of portents marking the end of the old order.
As the note states, it is unclear as to which specific predictions Jude refers, however, predictions of mockers and scoffers in the end times is found elsewhere in the New Testament.
2 Peter 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts
Acts 13:41 “‘Look, you scoffers,
be astounded and perish;
for I am doing a work in your days,
a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.’”
Matthew 24: 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.
words / predictions (v. 17) = ῥῆμα rhēma, hray’-mah; from G4483; an utterance (individually, collectively or specially),; by implication, a matter or topic (especially of narration, command or dispute); with a negative naught whatever:—+ evil, + nothing, saying, word.
Putting verse 17 into context with verses 14 and 15, Jude seems to be reminding his readers of the Second Coming of Christ. Notably by quoting 1 Enoch in those verses, which itself is a compilation of three OT verses, Jude places Christ in the role of God as it relates to The Day of the Lord. Christian theology is inclusive of Judaism’s messianic End Times teaching, it just places Christ into that moment – and in so doing – asserts his divinity.
Jude in these verses does something that you see in the eschatological teachings of both Christianity and Judaism. The verse exists both in the present and in the future. The idea is “already, but also, not yet.” You see this commonly when discussion of typology occurs. For Christians (for example) the Passover event in Egypt, as God rescued the Israelites from Pharoah, was both an event in its own time, but also a precursor to what was to come. The lamb’s blood on the wooden door frames was a thing that happened, but it also predicted The Lamb’s blood on the wooden cross that will follow. The story of Abraham and Isaac is treated in a similar way. So for Jude here, he is discussing False Teachers in his own time, but he also (re)asserts a something about the End Times which is also true.
Returning to the Pulpit Commentaries and verse 19:
There follows yet another description of the same men, taking up that in Jude 1:16, and generalizing it in harmony with what is suggested by the apostolic prediction. In three bold strokes it gives a representation of them which is at once the sharpest and the broadest of all. This final description, too, at last lays bare the root of their hopeless corruption. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. The pronoun “themselves” cannot be retained in face of the weight of documentary evidence against it. The verb (which is one of very rare occurrence) is held to be capable of more than one sense—seceding, causing divisions, creating factions, making definitions or distinctions. The most natural meaning seems to be that adopted by the Revised Version, they who make separations. So Tyndale; Cranmer and the Genevan have “these are makers of sects,” and Luther gives “makers of factions.” It may be that they caused divisions by setting themselves up as the only enlightened Christians, and, on the ground of that enlightenment, claiming to be superior to the moral laws which bound others. The term translated “sensual” has unfortunately no proper representative in English. It is “psychical,” being formed from the noun psyche, which is rendered “life” or “soul.” This psyche is intermediate between “body” and “spirit.” It is in the first instance simply the bond or principle of the animal life, and in the second instance it is embodied life. Thus it is that in man which he has in common with the brute creation beneath him, But it becomes also more than this, expressing that in man which renders him capable of connection with God. For in the third instance it denotes the seat of feeling, desire, affection, and emotion; the center of the personal life—the self in man. The adjective itself occurs in the New Testament only in a few passages of marked importance—1 Corinthians 2:14; 1Co 15:44, 1 Corinthians 15:46; James 3:15; and the present verse. Here it designates the men as men who live only for the natural self—men who make the sensuous nature, with its appetites and passions, the law of their life; natural or animal men, as the Revised Version gives it in the margin. Wickliffe renders it “beastly;” Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan, “fleshly;” the Rhemish, “sensual.” The third clause admits of being rendered either “having not the spirit” (in which the Authorized is supported by Wickliffe, Tyndale, and Cranmer), or “having not the Spirit” (so the Revised Version, following the Genevan and the Rhemish). For it is in many passages difficult to decide whether the word “spirit” means the Holy Spirit of God or man’s own spirit—that in him in virtue of which he can have fellowship with the Divine, and on which God specially acts; “that highest and noblest part of man,” as Luther puts it, “which qualifies him to lay hold of incomprehensible, invisible things, eternal things; in short … the house where faith and God’s Word are at home.” The rendering of the Revised Version is favoured by the occurrence of the term in the following verse. The Spirit of God was not in the lives or the thoughts of these men, and hence they were creators of division, and sensual. Their pretension was that they were the eminently spiritual. But in refusing the Divine Spirit they had sunk to the level of an animal life, immoral in itself, and productive of confusion to the Church.
Jude describes the False Teachers in verses 17 and 18 as mockers, scoffers, and as people who follow “ungodly passions.” This description is basically the other end of the spectrum from those who lovelessly preach the strictest obedience to the law. We tend to think of the loveless law-teachers as modern day Pharisees in present-day Western Christianity. Those Jude refers to are the people who justify their own lusts and scoff at the idea of the law. These would be people who call themselves Christians but reject the Church’s authority and the sacred Scripture’s authority (or, short of that they’ll argue that the Scripture says something other than what it actually says.) An umbrella term for this behavior is antinomianism.
One weakness of the Western (mostly Protestant) Church culture is its often unwitting rejection of Church authority. It’s not uncommon to see seminary educated pastors “starting their own church” under their own authority. I say “unwitting” because I doubt many of the pastors who do this actually see their actions as a rejection of any authority. They’d argue that they are under the authority of God. Many of America’s mega churches operate this way. The problem is that it follows that if one can assert one’s own magisterial authority (for what one might label a good reason such as evangelism,) then one can also assert it for a selfish reason. There is no easily discernable limiting principle to self-given authority to launching a church out of an old department store. Rather than a hierarchy of elders overseeing the Church plant, the expectation is shifted onto the congregation to discern whether or not the pastor is genuinely operating with the Holy Spirit.
Of course, we also see a rise of antinomianism among larger Church denominations which do have a hierarchical structure, led by elders, however in the places where that is occurring in larger denominations, you see elder-led push back against this false teaching because there is a structure in place for that push back to occur.
Jude uses a word to describe False Teachers in verse 19. The ESV translates it as “worldly people.”
Worldly people = ψυχικός psychikós, psoo-khee-kos’; from G5590; sensitive, i.e. animate (in distinction on the one hand from G4152, which is the higher or renovated nature; and on the other from G5446, which is the lower or bestial nature):—natural, sensual.
The idea conveyed (per the Commentary note bove) through the use of this word is that the person is devoid of God’s Spirit. It’s not just that these people are False Teachers who are gone astray, or are wrong, but instead it depicts infiltrators and people who are entirely unlike Believers. Jude views the False Teachers differently than those who might be influenced by them. One reason for this is that a Believer with the Spirit of God might become or be made to be confused. That’s not the same as lacking the Spirit entirely. For this reason, as we’ll see, Jude urges patience with this type of person. From the Pulpit Commentaries again:
From these corrupters of the Church, who have occupied his pen so long and so painfully, Jude now turns direct to his readers and brings his ‘subject to a fitting close, with a couple of exhortations full of a wise and tender concern. One of the two counsels deals with what they should do for the protection of their own Christian position against the insidious evils of which he has written in words of passion. The other deals with what they should do for the preservation of others exposed to the same seductive perils. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith. The tone of pleading affection appears in the grave and earnest words by which he reminds his readers of the necessity of looking carefully to their own perseverance. As the condition of all else, he names the great duty of personal edification or up-building. They must strengthen themselves on their foundation, and that foundation is their “most holy faith.” By this apparently Jude does not mean simply the subjective grace or virtue of faith. Peter, indeed, speaks of the strengthening and development of that as the secret of being neither barren nor unfruitful. But the idea and the phrase seem somewhat different here; for any spiritual gift of their own would be all too weak a security. It is rather the “faith” which has been already mentioned as “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3), and is now conceived as possessed by the readers. In this faith, of which Christ himself is the Sum, they have a secure foundation for their renewed life, and on this faith they are to establish themselves more and more. Praying in the Holy Ghost. These words go best together, though some attach the term, “in the Holy Ghost,” to the former clause. They express a second condition which must be made good, if the readers are to be safe from the seductions which threaten them. Their Christian life, if it is to be proof against these evils, must be fed by prayer, and by prayer of the deepest and most effectual order—prayer which takes its life and power from the Holy Spirit (cf. Ephesians 6:18; Romans 8:26). Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. The “love of God” must have a sense parallel to that of the “mercy of Christ.” It is, therefore, not our love to God, but his love to us. The love which God is revealed in Christ to have to us is that in which they are to keep themselves. So long as they live within its grace they cannot but be secure against the corruptions of men. If they fall away from it, they become an easy prey. And keeping themselves in this love, they are to “look for mercy.” They are then entitled to expect that mercy, and the attitude of expectation will itself be an aid to the keeping of themselves in the love. The mercy of the future is here spoken of as specifically the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ; Jude having in view that advent of Christ which filled the immediate horizon of the early Christians, and to which they looked with an intensity of expectation to us very partially realizable, as the event which would speedily reveal every man’s work and in which mercy would triumph over judgment for the faithful. And this mercy, or, as it also maybe, this expectation, is further described as having nothing less than eternal life for its object and its certain end. So the central idea in this counsel is the necessity of holding by the revealed fact of God’s love in Christ. The first two clauses point to the means by which this is to be made good, and the last clause expresses an attitude of soul which is at once an extension of the central duty and a help to it. And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire. The readings here are so diverse, and so difficult to determine, that some of our best critics take this to be one of the passages in which we have to recognize a corruption of the primitive text now past certain correction. The Received Text is clearly in error at least in one important term. The word which it renders “making a difference,” as if it referred to the readers, is in the same case with the “some,” and refers to the persons who are to be dealt with. It is doubtful, too, whether we have three different classes of persons referred to in three distinct hortatory sentences, or only two such classes. The most recent and best of our English students of the text, Messrs. Westcott and Hort, adopt readings which differ in some respects from those of the Authorized, but agree with it in presenting only two classes of persons. The Revised Version, following many good authorities, both ancient and modern, prefers another form of text with a triple division. Accepting this, we have still more than one uncertainty to take account of. In the first of the three clauses there is the difficulty of deciding between two readings, one of which gives us “on some have mercy,” while the other yields the sense “some convict,” that is to say, bring their sin home to them, or refute their error. The preference is to be given, on the whole, though with some hesitation, to the former of these readings, which is also the more difficult of the two. There is also the difficulty of determining the precise idea expressed by the participle in the same clause. It appears clear enough that it cannot have the sense assigned it by the Authorized Version, namely, that of “making a difference.” But setting this aside, we have still to choose between two ways of taking it. It may have the sense of hesitating or doubting; in which case the class of persons referred to will be those who are not wholly gone in unbelief, but are on the way to it. Such persons are to be regarded as fit objects for anxious, considerate, pitiful treatment. This is a sense which the word undoubtedly bears in several passages of the New Testament. It has also the sanction of the Revised Version, which renders it, “And on some have mercy, who are in doubt.” But it may also have the sense of contending, and the fact that it has already been so used in the present Epistle (Jude 1:9) is a weighty consideration in favour of this view. The rendering then might be, “Some compassionate, when they contend with you” (so Alford, etc.). In tide case the class referred to will be the contentious, of whom there might be different kinds, some more hopeful and reasonable, others less so. Men of this spirit are to be tried first with kindness and consideration. Even when they oppose you and draw off from you, be pitiful toward them; take a compassionate, helpful interest in them. The second clause is best rendered with the Revised Version, “And some save, snatching them out of the fire.” This brings a different class of persons into view—those who have sunk into corrupt courses which will soon undo them, who are already, indeed, in the penal fires of wrong, but yet are not beyond the possibility of rescue if quick and vigorous measures are taken with them. It is generally supposed that Jude has in view here the figure of the “brand plucked from the burning,” which occurs in Zechariah 3:2. If so, the position in which this second class stands is represented as one of the last possible peril. The terms are strong and vivid enough for this. They mean that there is no time to lose, that all depends upon the prompt use of efficient measures, however forcible and unwelcome. The third clause then runs, “And some compassionate with fear.” It points to a class who are to be dealt with in the same way as the first class. Yet there is a difference between them. This third class of persons is more dangerous to those who seek their good. They too are to be tried with active, helpful pity; but this is to be done “with fear.” In their case the life is so treacherous, the error so insidious, that their Christian benefactors incur grave risk in coming to close terms with them, and require to practice an anxious vigilance lest they be themselves led astray. Hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. The idea of “filthy garments” occurs in the same passage of Zechariah already referred to, and the term” garment” (here the tunic, or inner robe) is elsewhere used in a figurative sense (Revelation 3:4). Here it points to everything that is in contact with pollution. The clause seems to be added in order to give greater emphasis to the need of “fear” in dealing with men of the kind in question. Not only are their impurities to be zealously avoided, but all the accessories of these impurities—everything, in short, that is in any way connected with them. If this is the case, then this last is the most dangerous and hopeless of the three clauses mentioned. They are those “on whom profound pity is all that we dare bestow, and that in fear and trembling, lest by contact with them we may be brought within the influence of the deadly contamination that clings to all their surroundings” (Plummet). Only the pity which is to be shown them is not mere feeling, but a compassion which implies some active, though anxious interest in their rescue.
The note above points out that verses 22 and 23 are in some dispute, with the early text manuscripts often recorded differently. The oldest manuscript known currently is “Papyrus 72.”
Papyrus 72 (𝔓72, Papyrus Bodmer VII-VIII) is the designation used by textual critics of the New Testament to describe portions of the so-called Bodmer Miscellaneous codex, namely the letters of Jude, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter. These books seem to have been copied by the same scribe, and the handwriting has been paleographically assigned to the 3rd or 4th century.
Although the letters of Jude (P.Bodmer VII) and 1-2 Peter (P.Bodmer VIII) in this codex do not form a single continuous text, scholars still tend to refer to these three texts as a single early New Testament papyrus.
Papyrus 72 is the earliest known manuscript of these epistles, though a few verses of Jude are in a fragment �.78 (P. Oxy. 2684).
P.Bodmer VII (Jude) and P.Bodmer VIII (1–2 Peter) form part of a single book (the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex). This book appeared on the antiquities market in Egypt and was bought by the Swiss collector Martin Bodmer. The same scribe who copied P.Bodmer VII and VIII is also thought to have copied P.Bodmer X and XI.
The manuscript contains the usual nomina sacra for Messiah, Jesus, God, Lord, Spirit, Father, plus a few non-standard ones: ΔΥΜΙ (power), Σαρρα (Sarah), Αβρααμ (Abraham), Νωε (Noah), Μιχαης (Archangel Michael), and Ενωχ (Enoch).
A facsimile edition of Bodmer Papyrus VIII was published in 2007 by Testimonio Compañía Editorial.
Given the lack of textual clarity, it is difficult to assume too much on the basis of these two verses alone. That said, the lesson of these verses seems to be that Believers should not treat confused Believers, or would-be Believers, the same way that the False Teachers are treated. Jude advises mercy and patient instruction.
The close of the Epistle is called its Doxology.
doxology /dŏk-sŏl′ə-jē/
noun
- An expression of praise to God, especially a short hymn sung as part of a Christian worship service.
- A hymn or psalm of praise to God; a form of words containing an ascription of praise to God; specifically, the Gloria in Excelsis or great doxology, the Gloria Patri or lesser doxology, or some metrical ascription to the Trinity, like that beginning “Praise God, from whom all blessings flow.”
- In Christian worship: A hymn expressing praise and honor to God; a form of praise to God designed to be sung or chanted by the choir or the congregation.
Returning one more time to the Pulpit Commentaries:
The Epistle closes with a doxology of a high and solemn strain, resembling in some respects that with which the Epistle to the Romans concludes, and couched in terms befitting what has just been said of danger and duty. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling. The writer has counseled the readers to keep themselves in the love of God. He has also set before them the attitude they ought to adopt toward different classes, and has not concealed the peril to themselves which the discharge of Christian duty to others may involve. Recognizing how short the way is that brotherly counsel or personal effort can carry one in these solemn and arduous obligations, he now reminds his readers of a higher power that is available for their help and protection, and commends them to that as their best, their only security. The risk of falling or stumbling, as it rather means, is great. Only the omnipotence of God can “keep” them from it or protect them against it, the word for “keeping” being one which expresses the idea of “guarding.” And to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. The terms here again arc exceedingly vivid, the one which is rendered “present” meaning to “set one up” or “make one stand,” and the “faultless” being the adjective “without blemish” which is applied to the Levitical offerings in the Old Testament, and to Christ himself in 1 Peter 1:19. The “glory” here in view is that of the last day, when he to whom all judgment is committed returns to execute that judgment in his own glory and that of his Father (Luke 9:26; Titus 2:13). The “exceeding joy” expresses the feeling with which it shall be given to the faithful to meet that day. The Revised Version, therefore, more correctly renders it, “And to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy.” Weak and vulnerable as they are, God’s grace is mighty to do these two things for them—to protect them through time, and at the end of time to make them stand the scrutiny of the Judge like men in whom no blemish is discovered, and to whom that day brings exultant joy. To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and power, before all time, and now, and for evermore (or, unto all the ages). So the Revised Version renders it, in accordance with the best-authenticated text. Documentary evidence renders it necessary to omit the “wise” in the “only wise God” of the Authorized Version, to insert the clause, “through our Lord Jesus Christ,” to omit the “and” before the “majesty,” and to adopt the extended expression of duration in the closing sentence. Thus the largest possible ascription of praise is made to God. It is the ascription of an honour which is confessed to belong to him eternally, before the world was, as well as in the present, and on to the eternity which is yet to enter. This is his in his character of Saviour—Preserver of them that are tending to fall, Redeemer of the weak and sinful; and, therefore, it is “through Jesus Christ.”
The note points out a few interesting phrases in these final two verses.
First, “keeping” language implies protection from apostasy. For Jude, the possibility of apostasy seems to be a real concern. This touches on another contemporary Christian debate: Is one “always” saved, when one is “once” saved. Rather than get into that debate in great detail here, I will direct you to a TWO HOUR debate on the topic, embedded below. My general advice is to approach this topic, and any Believer who might disagree, with love, patience, and humility.
The Pulpit Commentary note, above, also points out the Old Testament language of sacrifice, “present you blameless.” We see this language used throughout the New Testament: Romans 12:1-12, 1 Thess. 3:13, Ephesians 5:27, Col. 1:22.
The other interesting phrase used in these final verses is Jude’s use of “before all time” in verse 25. It is easy to read over this phrase, but in using this phrase, Jude is making a claim to Christ’s pre-existence and His divinity. This is important, though, inasmuch as a consistently recurring heresy in Christianity has always been an attempt to assert a personality or viewpoint distinction between God the Father and God the Son. That distinction is more easily made if there was a period of time wherein God the Son was not in existence. Further, one can better make an argument against Christ’s divinity if He is described as a created person, rather than a pre-existent person. However, this is contrary to Christian beliefs, which assert the following:
John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
To that point, Christians interpret Christ into the Old Testament in several places, and Jude demonstrates that in verse 5 of this Epistle.
In addition, the idea of there being more than one person of of One God did not even originate with Christianity. It was a belief held (by some) during the Second Temple period of Judaism, due to numerous passages from the Old Testament seeming to present God as existing in two persons. This apparent presentation created a conundrum, because it needed to be blended with the overt teaching that God is One. For more on that Second Temple Period era debate, I direct you to the scholarly work, “Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism” by Alan F. Segal. It was only after the time of Jesus that this Two Powers doctrine was clarified, overtly, as a heresy in Judaism. Christians of course would argue that this clarification was done in error, and as a rebuke of Christianity.
That brings us to the end of the Epistle of Jude. It is a dense letter, covering a lot of ground, but at its heart it is a stern warning against the false teaching (and those who give the false teaching) that one can use the freedom that comes with Christ’s grace as a justification to sin sexually.