Jud_1:5. From this verse to Jud_1:7 we have three examples, as representations of the judgment which threatens those mentioned in Jud_1:4. Compare with this 2Pe_2:4-6.
ὑπομνῆσαι
δὲ
ὑμᾶς
βούλομαι
]
δέ
is used metabatically (as a mere particle of transition); not in order to put
ὑπομνῆσαι
in contrast to
παρακαλῶν
(Jud_1:3), which is only to be justified by the explanation of Schott, that “Jude intends not properly to exhort the readers, but by
παρακαλεῖν
he means only that he will remind them.”
ὑμᾶς
is not the subject, but the object to
ὑπομνῆσαι
; comp. 2Pe_1:12 (Rom_15:15).
εἰδότας
[
ὑμάς
]
ἅπαξ
πάντα
]
εἰδότας
is either in an adversative sense =
καίπερ
εἰδότας
(de Wette); or, which is to be preferred on account of
ἅπαξ
, the statement of the reason of
ὑπομνῆσαι
, Nicolas de Lyra: commonere autem vos volo et non docere de novo; et subditur ratio; Bengel: causa, cur admoneat duntaxat: quia jam sciant, semelque cognitum habeant; so also Wiesinger and Schott.
ἅπαξ
is not to be united per hyperbaton with
σώσας
; also not = first, so that
δεύτερον
corresponding to it would be = secondly, and both referred to
εἰδότας
(Jachmann); but
ἅπαξ
belongs to
εἰδότας
, and
τὸ
δεύτερον
to
ἀπώλεσεν
. Hornejus incorrectly explains
ἅπαξ
by: jampridem et ab initio (Arnaud: vous qui l’avez su une fois); it has here rather the same meaning as in Jud_1:3, rendering prominent that a new teaching is not necessary (de Wette, Stier, Wiesinger, Fronmüller, Schott, Hofmann).
πάντα
; according to Nicolas de Lyra = omnia ad salutem necessaria; better: everything which is an object of evangelical teaching, here naturally with particular reference to what directly follows, to which alone the
τοῦτο
of the Rec. points.[15]
ὍΤΙ
Ὁ
ΚΎΡΙΟς
(
ἸΗΣΟῦς
)
ΛΑῸΝ
…
ΣΏΣΑς
]
ὍΤΙ
belongs not to
ΕἸΔΌΤΑς
ΠΆΝΤΑ
, but to
ὙΠΟΜΝῆΣΑΙ
.
With the reading (
Ὁ
)
ἸΗΣΟῦς
(Stier calls it: “without example, and incomprehensibly strange”) Jude here would speak from the same point of view as Paul does in 1Co_10:4 (comp. also 1Pe_1:11), according to which all the acts of divine revelation are done by the instrumentality of Christ, as the eternal Son and revealer of God. The name
ἸΗΣΟῦς
, by which Christ is designated in His earthly and human personality, is, however, surprising; but Jude might have so used it from the consciousness that the eternal Son of God and He who was born of Mary is the same Person (comp. 1Co_8:9; Php_2:5). With the reading
ΚΎΡΙΟς
—certainly the more natural—which de Wette-Brückner and Hofmann prefer, whilst Wiesinger and Schott consider
ἸΗΣΟῦς
as the original—a designation of God is to be understood.
ΛΑΌΝ
] That by this the people of Israel is meant is evident; the article is wanting, because Jude would indicate that Israel was saved as an entire people, with reference to the following
ΤΟῪς
ΜῊ
ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΑς
.[16]
τὸ
δεύτερον
] is to be retained in its proper meaning, and to be explained neither, with Nicolas de Lyra and others, as = post (Arnaud: de nouveau, ensuite, après), nor, with Grotius and Wolf, as = ex contrario. It indicates that what was said in the preceding participial sentence, namely, the divine deliverance of the people from Egypt, is considered as a first deed, to which a second followed. The definite statement of what this second is, is usually derived from the preceding
σώσας
, and by it is accordingly understood a second deliverance; but there are different views as to what deliverance is meant. In this commentary the deliverance of the people from the wilderness was designated as this second deliverance, which certainly occurred to the people, yet only so that those who believed not did not attain to it, but were destroyed by God in the wilderness (so in essentials, Stier, Brückner, Wiesinger). On the other hand, Schmidt (bibl. Theologie, II.), Luthardt, Schott, Hofmann understand by it the deliverance effected by Christ; whilst they regard as the punishment falling on unbelievers, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow of the Jewish state. But both explanations are arbitrary; for, first, it is unauthorized to refer
τὸ
δεύτερον
only to
σώσας
and not to
ἐκ
γῆς
Αἰγύπτου
σώσας
; and, secondly, in the principal sentence a deliverance is not at all indicated.[17] Whilst, then, Jude thinks on the deliverance from Egypt as a first deed, he does not mention a deliverance, but the destruction of those who believed not, as the second deed following the first. But this second is not indicated as a single deed, and therefore by it is to be understood generally what befell the unbelieving in the wilderness after the deliverance from Egypt; what this was is expressed in the words
τοὺς
μὴ
πιστεύσαντας
ἀπώλεσεν
. It is arbitrary to refer this, with Ritschl, only to the history recorded in Num_25:1-9; and still more arbitrary to refer it, with Fronmüller, to the Babylonish captivity (2Ch_36:16 ff.). Compare, moreover, with this verse, Heb_3:16-19.
ΤΟῪς
ΜῊ
ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΑς
] On
ΜΉ
, with participles, see Winer, p. 449 f. [E. T. 606 f.]; comp. Jud_1:6 :
ΤΟῪς
ΜῊ
ΤΗΡΉΣΑΝΤΑς
. It is to be observed that in the corresponding passage, 2 Peter 2, instead of this example, the deluge is named.
[15] Schott, indeed, explains
πάντα
correctly; but he erroneously thinks that
ἅπαξ
with
εἰδότας
indicates “this knowledge is meant as a knowledge effected by a definite individual act,” and that
ἅπαξ
is to be understood of the instruction given in Second Peter.
[16] Calvin observes: nomen populi honorifice capitur pro gente sancta et electa, ac si diceret, nihil illis profuisse, quod singulari privilegio in foedus assumpti essent; but were this correct, a
αὑτοῦ
would at least have been added.
[17] Against Winer’s explanation, p. 576 [E. T. 775]: “the verb connected with
τὸ
δεύτερον
should properly have been
οὐκ
ἔσωσε
(
ἀλλά
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.); the Lord, after having saved, the second time (when they needed His helping grace) refused them this saving grace, and left them to destruction.” But there is nothing indicated in the context of a state of being in want of grace.