Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Jude 1:11 - 1:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jud_1:11. The author interrupts his description of these ungodly men by a denunciation on them, which he grounds by characterizing them after the example of the ungodly in the O. T. (comp. 2Pe_2:15 ff.).
οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς ] The same denunciation frequently occurs in the discourses of Jesus: “at once a threatening and a strong disapproval” (de Wette). With this οὐαί Jude indicates the judgment into which the Antinomians have fallen; it refers back to Jud_1:5-7; Wiesinger incorrectly understands it only as a mere “exclamation of pain and abhorrence.”[30] This denunciation of woe does not occur with an apostle; frequently in the O. T.
ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν ] On the phrase: τῇ ὁδῷ τινος πορεύεσθαι , comp. Act_14:16. (Act_9:31 : πορ . τῷ φόβῳ τ . κυρίου .) τῇ ὁδῷ is to be understood locally (see Meyer on the above passages), not “instrumentally” (Schott), which does not suit ἐπορεύθησαν .
ἐπορεύθησαν ; preterite (Luther and others translate it as the present), because Jude represents the judgment threatened in οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς as fulfilled (de Wette-Brückner). Schott incorrectly explains it: “they have set out, set forth.” Many expositors find the similarity with Cain to consist in this, that whereas he murdered his brother, these by seduction of the brethren are guilty of spiritual murder; so Oecumenius, Estius, Grotius (Cain fratri vitam caducam ademit; illi fratribus adimunt aeternam), Calovius, Hornejus, Schott, and others. But this conversion into the spiritual is arbitrary, especially as the desire of seduction in these men is not specially brought forward by Jude. Other expositors, adhering to the murder committed by Cain, think on the persecuting zeal of these false teachers against believers; so Nicolas de Lyra: sequuntur mores et studia latronis ex invidia et avaritia persequentes sincerioris theologiae studiosos. As the later Jews regarded Cain as a symbol of moral scepticism, so Schneckenburger supposes that Jude would here reproach his opponents with this scepticism; but there is also no indication of this in the context. De Wette stops at the idea that Cain is named as “the archetype of all wicked men;” so also Arnaud[31] and Hofmann; but this is too general. Brückner finds the point of resemblance in this, that as Cain out of envy, on account of the favour shown to Abel, resisting the commandment and warning of God, slew his brother, so these false teachers resisted God, and that from envy of the favour shown to believers. But in the context there is no indication of the definite statement “from envy.” It is more in correspondence with the context to find the tertium compar. in this, that Cain in spite of the warning of God followed his own wicked lusts; Fronmüller: “The point of comparison is acting on the selfish impulses of nature, in contempt of the warnings of God.”
καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν ] πλάνη , as a sinful moral error, denotes generally a vicious life averted from the truth; comp. Jam_5:20; 2Pe_2:18 (Eze_33:16, LXX. translation of ôÌÆùÑÇò ). ἐκχεῖσθαι in the middle, literally, to issue forth out of something, construed with εἴς τι ; figuratively, to rush into something, to give oneself up with all his might to something (Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 491, 3; ΕἸς ἩΔΟΝῊΝ ἘΚΧΥΘΈΝΤΕς ; several proof passages in Wahl, Elsner, Wetstein); it is less suitable to explain the verb according to Psa_73:2, where the LXX. have ἘΞΕΧΎΘΗ as a translation of ùÑËôÌÀëåÌ = to slip (Grotius: errare). The dative τῇ πλάνῃ is = εἰς τὴν πλάνην ; Schott incorrectly explains it as dativus instrumentalis, since ἐξεχύθησαν requires a statement for the completion of the idea. The genitive μισθοῦ is, with Winer, p. 194 [E. T. 258], to be translated: for reward (see Grotius in loco); so that the meaning is: “they gave themselves up for a reward (i.e. for the sake of earthly advantage, thus from covetousness; Luther: ‘for the sake of enjoyment’) to the sin of Balaam;” thus most interpreters, also Brückner, Wiesinger, Hofmann. De Wette, on the contrary, after the example of Erasmus, Vatablus, and others, explains ΒΑΛΑΆΜ as a genitive dependent on ΤΟῦ ΜΙΣΘΟῦ ; the dative Τῇ ΠΛΆΝῌ , as = by means of the error; and ἘΞΕΧΎΘΗΣΑΝ as an intransitive verb = “to commit excesses, to give vent to.” Accordingly, he translates the passage as follows: “By (by means of) the error (seduction) of the reward of Balaam, they have poured themselves out (in vice).” So also Hornejus: deceptione mercedis, qua deceptus fuit Balaam, effusi sunt.[32] But this construction is extremely harsh, the ideas πλάνη and ἘΞΕΧΎΘΗΣΑΝ are arbitrarily interpreted, and the whole sentence, so interpreted, would be withdrawn from the analogy of the other two with which it is co-ordinate.[33] Schott construes the genitive with ΠΛΆΝῌ , whilst he designates it “as an additional, and, as it were, a parenthetically added genitive for the sake of precision,” and for this he supplies a ΠΛΆΝῌ : “the error of Balaam, which was an error determined by gain.” This construction, it is true, affords a suitable sense, but it is not linguistically justified: it is entirely erroneous to take ΜΙΣΘΟῦ as in apposition to ΒΑΛΑΆΜ = Ὃς ΜΙΣΘῸΝ ἨΓΆΠΗΣΕΝ , 2Pe_2:15 (Fronmüller, Steinfass).
De Wette, chiefly from Rev_2:14, finds the point of resemblance in this, that “Balaam as a false prophet and a seducer to unchastity and idolatry, and contrary to the will of God, went to Balak, and that he is also particularly considered as covetous and mercenary.” But there is no indication that the men of whom Jude speaks enticed others to idolatry. Hofmann observes that this clause calls the sin of those described as “a devilish conduct against the people of God, the prospect of a rich reward being too alluring to Balaam to prevent him entering into the desires of Balak to destroy the people of God;” but in this explanation also a reference is introduced not indicated by the context. That Jude had primarily in view the covetousness of Balaam, ΜΙΣΘΟῦ shows; blinded by covetousness, Balaam resisted the will of God; his resistance was his ΠΛΆΝΗ , in which, and in the motive to it, the Antinomians resembled him (Brückner, Wiesinger); whether Jude had also in view the seduction to unchastity (comp. Num_31:16; Fronmüller), is at least doubtful; and it is still more doubtful to find the point of resemblance in this, that the Antinomians “had in view a material gain to be obtained by the ruin of the church of God” (Schott).
καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο ] ἈΝΤΙΛΟΓΊΑ , contradiction; here, seditious resistance. ἀπώλοντο does not mean that “they lost themselves in the ἈΝΤΙΛ . of Korah,” but “that they perished;” accordingly, Τῇ ἈΝΤΙΛΟΓΊᾼ is the instrumental dative. The point of resemblance is not, with Nicolas de Lyra, to be sought in this, that the opponents of Jude formed propter ambitionem honoris et gloriae sectas erroneas; or, with Hornejus, that they assumed the munus Apostolorum ecclesiae doctorum; or, with Hofmann, that they, as Korah (“whose resistance consisted in his unwillingness to recognise as valid the law of the priesthood of Aaron, on which the whole religious constitution of Israel rested”), “desired to assert a liberty not restricted;” but it consists in the proud resistance to God and His ordinances, which the Antinomians despise. By Schott’s explanation: “that they opposed to the true holiness a holiness of their own invention, namely, the holiness alleged to be obtained by disorderly excess,” a foreign reference is introduced.[34] The gradation of the ideas ὁδός , πλάνη , ἀντιλογία , in respect of definiteness, is not to be denied; but there is also a gradation of thought, for although the point about which Cain, Balaam, and Korah are named is one and the same, namely, resistance to God, yet this appears in the most distinct manner in the case of Korah.
[30] Hofmann correctly observes: “ οὐαί has evil in view, whether it be in the tone of compassion which bewails it (Mat_23:15), or of indignation which imprecates it (Mat_11:21).” As not the first but the second is the case here, Hofmann should not have rejected the explanation of de Wette.
[31] Arnaud: J. compare seulement, d’une manière très générale, ses adversaires à Cain, sous le rapport de la méchanceté.
[32] Calvin: dixit (Ap.), instar Bileam mercede fuisse deceptos, quia pietatis doctrinam turpis lucri gratia adulterant; sed metaphora, qua utitur, aliquanto plus exprimit; dixit enim effusos esse, quia scilicet instar aquae diffluentis projecta sit eorum intemperies.
[33] “The parallelism of the three clauses requires that τῇ πλάνῃ ἐξεχύθησυν should remain together, accordingly the genitive is equivalent to ἀντὶ μισθοῦ ” (Stier).
[34] Ritschl finds the point of resemblance between the Antinomians and the three named in this, “that they, as these, undertook to worship God in a manner rejected by Him.” But it is erroneous that “the Korahites exhibited their assumption of the priesthood by the presentation of an offering rejected by God;” it is incorrect that by ὁδός is indicated “the religious conduct” of Cain; and it is incorrect that the utterance of the curse willed by Balaam is to be considered as a religious transaction. Moreover, in the description of the Antinomians there is no trace indicating that their view was directed to a particular kind of worship.