Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Jude 1:8 - 1:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jud_1:8. Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 2Pe_2:10.
ὁμοίως ] i.e. similarly as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc.
μέντοι ] expresses here no contrast (so earlier in this commentary: “notwithstanding the judgment which has come on those cities on account of such sins”), but it serves, as Hofmann correctly observes, appealing to Kühner’s Gramm. II. p. 694, “simply for the strengthening of the expression, putting the emphasis on ὁμοίως ; those men, says Jude, actually do the same thing as the Sodomites.”
καὶ οὗτοι ] refers back to τινες ἄνθρωποι , Jud_1:4.
ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι ] only here and in Act_2:17, where it is used of prophetical dreams, according to Joe_3:1. This meaning does not here suit, for Bretschneider’s explanation: “falsis oraculis decepti vel falsa oracula edentes,” is wholly arbitrary. Most expositors unite it closely with the following σάρκα μιαίνουσι , and understand it either: de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur (Vorstius), or of voluptuous dreams, appealing to Isa_56:10 (LXX. ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι κοίτην , an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew çÉæÄéí ùÑÉëÀáÄéí ), or of unnatural cohabiting (Oecumenius). Jachmann (with whom Brückner agrees) understands it generally = “sunk in sleep, i.e. hurried along in the tumult of the senses,” appealing to the parallel passage, 2Pe_2:10 ( ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ ). Similarly Calvin: est metaphorica loquutio, qua significat, ipsos tam esse habetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad omnem turpitudinem se prostituant. But in all these explanations the expression is only referred to the first clause of the following sentence; but this is opposed to the construction: it refers to both clauses,—else it would have been put directly with μιαίνουσι ,—and denotes the condition in which and out of which they do those things which are expressed in the following clauses. It is unsatisfactory to keep in view only the negative point of ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι , the want of a clear consciousness (Hornejus: tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi lethargo sopiti non tantum impure vivant, etc.; Arnaud: qui agissent sans savoir ce qu’ils font); the positive point is chiefly to be observed, which consists in living in the arbitrary fancies of their own perverted sense, which renders them deaf to the truths and warnings of the divine word (so in essentials, Stier, Fronmüller, Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner, Hofmann[25]). The reference to Isa_29:10, LXX.: πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος κατανύξεως , is unsuitable (against Beza, Carpzov, and others), as here the discourse is not about a punitive decree of God.
σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσι ] not their flesh, but generally the flesh, both their own and that of others: the thought refers back to Jud_1:7 : ἐκπορνεύσασαι , etc.
κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσι , δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν ] announces a new side of their sinful nature. As this verse is in evident connection of thought with Jud_1:10, where the words ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς … φθείρονται refer back to σάρκα μὲν μιαίν ., so κυριότης and δόξαι can only be here such things as suit the words ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν . It is thus incorrect to understand them of political powers (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and others), or of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius[26]), or of human authorities generally, the two words being either taken as designations of concrete persons, or one of them as a pure abstraction: Arnaud: par ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗΤΑ il faut entendre l’autorité en général et par ΔΌΞΑς les dignités quelconques, les hommes méritant, par leur position, le respect et la considération.
Both expressions are to be understood as a designation of supermundane powers. Almost all recent expositors agree in this, although they differ widely in the more definite statement. These different explanations are as follows:—(1) ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς is taken as a designation of God or Christ, and ΔΌΞΑΙ as a designation of the good angels (Ritschl); (2) the good angels are understood in both expressions (Brückner); (3) ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς is understood in the first explanation, but ΔΌΞΑΙ is explained of the evil angels (Wiesinger); (4) both expressions are understood as a designation of the evil angels (Schott). In order first correctly to determine the idea ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς , the relation of Jud_1:8 to what goes before is to be observed. The judgments which have befallen the people (Jud_1:5), the angels (Jud_1:6), and the cities (Jud_1:7), are by Jude adduced as a testimony against the Antinomians ( ΟὟΤΟΙ , Jud_1:8) mentioned in Jud_1:4, evidently because these persons are guilty of the same sins on account of which those judgments occurred. Since ΣΆΡΚΑ ΜΙΑΊΝΟΥΣΙ evidently points back to ἘΚΠΟΡΝΕΎΣΑΣΑΙ , Jud_1:7, and further to ἈΣΈΛΓΕΙΑΝ , Jud_1:4, it is most natural to refer ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗΤΑ ἈΘΕΤΟῦΣΙΝ to ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΑς , Jud_1:5, and, further, to ΤῸΝ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΌΤΗΝ … ἈΡΝΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ , Jud_1:4. Consequently, by ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς —if one takes ΤῸΝ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΌΤΗΝ as a designation of God—is to be understood the Godhead; or, if one understands τ . μ . δ . as a predicate to ἸΗΣ . ΧΡ ., Christ. If, now, it is assumed that δόξαι is an idea corresponding to ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς , and to be taken along with it, then by it the good angels are to be understood. But it must not be overlooked that the clause ΔΌΞΑς ΔῈ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟῦΣΙΝ is separated from the preceding clause by ΔΈ ; and that Jud_1:9 leads to a different understanding of ΔΌΞΑΙ . When in Jud_1:9 it is said of the archangel Michael that he dared not ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ἘΠΕΝΕΓΚΕῖΝ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑς against the devil, this βλασφημίας evidently refers back to ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟῦΣΙΝ , Jud_1:8, consequently the two ideas ΔΌΞΑς and ΔΙΆΒΟΛΟς are brought together, so that from this the preference must be given to the explanation which understands by ΔΌΞΑς the diabolical powers, or the evil angels. That not only δόξαι , but also ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς , is a designation of evil powers, Schott incorrectly appeals to the fact that in 2Pe_2:10, and also here, the unchaste, carnal life of the false teachers is connected with their despising or rejection of ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς ; for although it is presupposed that the recognition of the reverence for ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς might restrain these men from the abuse of their fleshly nature, yet it does not follow from this that only evil spirits can be meant, since also the recognition of the reverence for the divine power restrains from the abuse of the corporeal senses which were created by God. To the identification of ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς and ΔΌΞΑΙ —whether good or evil angels are to be understood—not only is the form of the expression opposed, Jude not uniting the two clauses by ΚΑΊ , but, as already remarked, separating them by ΔΈ ,[27] but also the difference of the conduct of the Antinomians, whilst they despise ( ἀθετοῦσιν ; 2 Pet.: καταφρονοῦσιν ) the κυριότης , but blaspheme the δόξαι . The clearer this separation and distinction are kept in view, the less reason is there against deriving the exact meaning of δόξαι from Jud_1:9 (2Pe_2:10 from Jud_1:11), and consequently against understanding by it evil angels (comp. Hofmann); only it must not be affirmed that Jude has used the expression δόξαι as a name for the evil angels as such, but only that, whilst so naming angels generally, he here means the evil angels, as is evident from Jud_1:9. That these may be understood by this designation cannot be denied, especially, as Wiesinger points out, as Paul in Eph_6:12 names them αἱ ἀρχαί , αἱ ἐξουσίαι , οἱ κοσμοκράτορες , and says of them that they are ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις .
ἀθετοῦσιν … βλασφημοῦσιν ] The first expression is negative, the second positive; the Antinomians manifested the despising of κυριότης by the carnal licentiousness of their lives, whilst they fancied themselves exempt by χάρις (Jud_1:4) from the duty of obedience to the will of God (or Christ) as the κύριος requiring a holy life; but their blasphemy of the δόξαι consisted in this, that on the reproach of having in their immorality fallen under diabolical powers, they mocked at them as entirely impotent beings.
[25] “Those here spoken of are wakeful dreamers, so that they, when they should perceive with their wakeful senses, have only dreams, and what they dream they esteem as the perception of the wakeful spirit.”
[26] Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking that by κυριότης may also be understood ἡ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου τελετή , and by δόξαι also ἡ παλαία διαθήκη καὶ ἡ νέα ; on 2Pe_2:10 he observes: δόξας , ἤτοι τὰς θείας φησὶ δυνάμεις , ἢ καὶ τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἀρχάς .
[27] Also in 2Pe_2:10, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες is separated from κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας by the intervening τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις .
REMARK.
According to Ritschl’s opinion, the actions which Jude here asserts of the Antinomians represent directly only the guilt of their forerunners (namely, the Israelites, Jud_1:5; the angels, Jud_1:6; and the Sodomites, Jud_1:7), and his expressions can therefore only be understood in an indirect and metaphorical sense. To this conclusion Ritschl arrives (1) by explaining the second clause of Jud_1:10, that the Antinomians understood relations to be understood spiritually φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα , i.e. that they considered the blessings promised in the kingdom of heaven as the blessings of sensual enjoyment; (2) by so understanding the relation of Jud_1:8 to the preceding, that δόξας βλασφ . is to be referred back to Jud_1:7, κυριότ . ἀθετ . to Jud_1:6, and σαρκὰ μιαίν . to Jud_1:5. According to his view, Jude finds the guilt of the Sodomites (Jud_1:7) to consist in this, that by the design of practising their lust on the angels, they blasphemed them; the guilt of the angels (Jud_1:6) in this, that they undervalued their own dominion; and the guilt of the Israelites (Jud_1:5) in this, that they had criminal intercourse with the impure daughters of Moab. Over against this, the guilt of the Antinomians consisted in this—(1) that they regarded immorality as a privilege of the kingdom of God, which they have in common with the angels; (2) that by referring their immoral practice to the kingdom of God, they showed a depreciation of the dominion which belongs to Christ, or to which they themselves are called; and (3) that by their ἀσέλγεια they were guilty of the defilement of those connected with them in the Christian church. But both the explanation of the second clause of Jud_1:10, where there is no mention of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and the statement of the relation of Jud_1:8 to what goes before, is incorrect, since in Jud_1:7 the Sodomites and the other cities are reproached, not with an evil intention, but with an actual doing; in Jud_1:6 the not preserving their ἀρχή and the forsaking of their οἰκητήριον are indeed reckoned as a crime to the angels, but specially on this account, because they did it—as τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις , Jud_1:7, shows—for the sake of ἐκπορνεύειν ; and lastly, in Jud_1:5 the criminal intercourse with the daughters of Moab is not indicated as the reason of their ἀπώλεια , but their unbelief ( μὴ πιστεύοντας ). For these reasons Wiesinger has correctly rejected the explanation of Ritschl as mistaken.
The view of Steinfass, expressed on 2Pe_2:10, that the blasphemy of the δόξαι by the Antinomians consisted in their wishing to constrain the angels by charms to love-intrigues, is, apart from all other considerations, contradicted by the fact that neither in 2 Peter nor in Jude is there any reference to charms and love-intrigues with the angels.