Jud_1:22-23. The exhortations contained in these verses refer to the conduct of believers toward those who are exposed to seduction by the
ἀσεβεῖς
(Jud_1:4) (de Wette); not toward the false teachers themselves (Reiche), for these are of such a kind (Jud_1:12) that the church should have nothing to do with them. The best attested text is that which codex A affords:
καὶ
οὓς
μὲν
ἐλέγχετε
διακρινομένους
·
οὓς
δὲ
σώζετε
ἐκ
πυρὸς
ἁρπάζοντες
,
οὓς
δὲ
ἐλεεῖτε
(Lachmann and Tischendorf,
ἐλεᾶτε
)
ἐν
φόβῳ
; see critical remarks.
οὓς
μὲν
…
οὓς
δέ
instead of
τοὺς
μὲν
…
τοὺς
δέ
, see Winer, p. 100. According to this reading, three classes of the seduced are distinguished, and toward each a special conduct is prescribed. It is, however, asked whether, as Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, and others assume, there is a gradation from the curable to the incurable (a dubitantibus minusque depravatis ad … insanabiles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ab ipsorum contumacia prohibemur: Reiche); or conversely from the incurable to the curable. In reference to the first class it is said:
οὓς
μὲν
ἐλέγχετε
διακρινομένους
] The verb
ἐλέγχειν
denotes to rebuke some one’s sins by punishing him. The object for which this is done is not indicated in the word itself; it may be to lead the sinner to the acknowledgment of his sins, and thus to repentance, comp. 1Co_14:24; 2Ti_4:2; Tit_1:13; or it may also be condemnation, comp. particularly Jude Jud_1:15 (Joh_16:8; Tit_1:9). The explanation of Oecumenius is incorrect:
φανεροῦτε
τοῖς
πᾶσιν
τὴν
ἀσέβειαν
αὐτῶν
. Those who are to be punished are denoted
διακρινομένους
. Both the translation of the Vulgate: judicatos, and the interpretation of Oecumenius:
κακείνους
εἰ
μὲν
ἀποδιΐστανται
ὑμῶν
ἐλέγχετε
, are incorrect.
διακρίνεσθαι
signifies in the N. T. either to contend, which is here unsuitable, or to doubt, and is opposed to
πιστεύειν
; comp. Mat_21:21; Mar_11:23; Rom_4:20; especially Jam_1:6. This last passage shows that, although not equivalent to
ἀπιστεῖν
, it denotes the condition in which
ἀπιστία
has the preponderance over
πίστις
, the latter being a vanishing point.[47] It is evident that Jude does not consider the
ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟΙ
as weak believers (Schott), because, with reference to them, he will employ no other method than
ἐλέγχειν
(not
ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΕῖΝ
, or something similar); those seduced are in his view such as (punishment apart) are to be left to themselves.[48] In reference to the second class it is said:
οὓς
δὲ
σώζετε
ἐκ
πυρὸς
ἁρπάζοντες
] Their condition is not stated, but it is to be inferred from the conduct to be observed towards them. Toward those belonging to this class a
σώζειν
is to be employed, but of such a nature as is more precisely stated by
ἐκ
πυρὸς
ἁρπάζοντες
.
ἐκ
πυρός
is not from the fire of future judgment (Oecumenius, Fronmüller), but
πῦρ
is the present destruction, in which they already are (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott);
ἁρπάζειν
denotes hasty, almost violent, snatching out, and indicates that those are already in extreme danger of perdition; comp. Amo_4:11; Zec_3:2. Distinguished from the
διακρινομένοις
, the second class are to be considered as those who have not yet lost the faith, but have, through fellowship with the Antinomians, been enticed to their licentious life; these are to be rescued.
σώζετε
is evidently in contrast to
ἐλέγχετε
, and denotes them to be such as one may certainly hope to rescue, provided one snatches them with violence, and tears them out of this fellowship. In reference to the third class, Jude prescribes
ἐλεεῖν
(on the form
ἐλεᾶτε
, see Winer, p. 32 [E. T. 104]). This verb in the N. T. never means only “to have compassion” (Schott), but always to compassionate one with helpful love, as also
ἔλεος
is always used only of active compassion; so that with
ἐλεεῖτε
the exact contrary is said to what Luther finds expressed, when he explains it: “let them go, avoid them, and have nothing to do with them.” By this is denoted rather the helpful and saving benevolence by which the erring are again to be brought back to the right way. As this
ἐλεεῖν
makes a fellowship necessary with those upon whom it is exercised, Jude defines the same more precisely by
ἐν
φόβῳ
; accordingly, they must not be wanting in foresight, lest they suffer injury themselves,[49] and he adds the participial sentence as an explanation of this
ἘΝ
ΦΌΒῼ
:
ΜΙΣΟῦΝΤΕς
ΚΑῚ
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
.[50] This exhortation shows that Jude considers the third class as those who are indeed already involved, but who, by active compassion, may again be re-established; it is not so bad with them as with those toward whom only
ἐλέγχειν
is to be employed; but also it is not yet so bad as with those who can only be rescued by hastily snatching them.
[47] When Hofmann says, “that
διακρίνεσθαι
cannot have this meaning requires no proof,” he makes an entirely groundless assumption.
[48] In the reading of the Rec.:
οὓς
μὲν
ἐλεεῖτε
διακρινόμενοι
, we are obliged to explain
διακρίνεσθαι
as = distinguished. Luther: “and make this distinction, that ye compassionate some;” or, more exactly, “compassionate the one, making a distinction,” namely, from others. But
διακρινόμενοι
must be passive, since not
διακρίνεσθαι
, but only
διακρίνειν
, has the meaning to distinguish.
[49] Schott is entirely mistaken when he says that
ἐλεεῖν
denotes here “a compassion which has, and may have, its definite peculiarity no longer in an impulse to help, hut only in a fear of acting wrongly, and in consequence of receiving injury;” in other words, a compassion which is no compassion.
[50] According to the reading of the Rec.
ἐν
φόβῳ
belongs to
σώζετε
. Some expositors (Grotius, Stier, and others) incorrectly explain it of the fear of the persons to he rescued; correctly Arnaud: c’est à dire, prenant garde que, tout en cherchant à les convertir, ils ne vous séduisent pas vous-memes. Reiche incorrectly, with the reading A, separates
ἐν
φόβῳ
from
ἐλεᾶτε
, and joins it with
μιτοῦντες
, whilst it would attract to it a very superfluous addition.
Hofmann considers the reading of
à
:
καὶ
οὕς
μὲν
ἐλεᾶτε
διακρινομένους
οὕς
δὲ
σώζετε
ἐκ
πυρὸς
ἁρπάζοντες
,
οὓς
δὲ
ἐλεᾶτε
ἐν
φόβῳ
, as the correct one. In his explanation of this reading he distinguishes not three, but only two classes, assuming that only the first, but not the second
οὓς
δέ
stands opposed to
οὓς
μέν
; and that this latter
οὓς
δέ
is to be considered rather as a resumption of the object mentioned in
οὓς
μέν
. This opinion is, however, erroneous, since, according to it, the third
οὕς
is understood differently from the first and second
οὕς
, namely, as a pure relative pronoun; and since, in a highly arbitrary manner, “
ἐν
φόβῳ
is explained as a consequence, united with an imperative
ἐλεᾶτε
to be taken from
οὓς
ἐλεᾶτε
:” “whom ye compassionate, them compassionate with fear.” Also the explanation of the first member of the sentence: “the readers are to compassionate the one with distinction,” is to be rejected, since it has against it N. T. usage, according to which
διακρίνεσθαι
is never used as the passive of
διακρίνειν
in the sense of “to distinguish.”
ΚΑΊ
, even, gives greater emphasis to the thought. The expression
τὸν
χιτῶνα
is to be understood in a literal, and not in a figurative sense (Bullinger: exuvias veteris Adami, concupiscentias et opera carnis).
ΧΙΤῶΝ
is the under garment worn next the skin, and which, by means of its direct contact with the flesh unclean by unchastity, etc., is itself soiled (
ΣΠΙΛΌΩ
only here and in Jam_3:6); comp. Rev_3:4.
This garment is to the author the symbol of whatever, by means of external contact, shares in the moral destruction of those men. Calvin: vult fideles non tantum cavere a vitiorum contactu, sed ne qua ad eos contagio pertingat, quicquid affine est ac vicinum, fugiendum esse admonet.
[51] Both in the reading of the Rec. and in the reading of C this addition is surprising; one may regard it, with Jachmann, as the adversative reason of
σώζετε
(though ye hate); or, with de Wette, as the real reason (since ye hate, for which de Wette appeals to 1Co_5:6!).