The Key of the Bible, Biblical commentary · Part 2 · Section 2 · Subsection 21
Jude.
THe Catholique (or generall) Epistle of the Apostle JUDAS. Thus denominated, from the Penman who wrote it, and from the persons to whom it was written, viz. the same to whom Peter wrote his second Epistle; For substance being both the same.
Penman. Iudas the brother of Iames, Jud. 1. This is Originally an Hebrew name, viz. foreign Iehudah, i. e. Praise; from foreign Hodah, i. e. He hath confessed, he hath praised. This name was first given to the fourth sonne of Iakob, because at his birth his mother praised the Lord. Gen. 29.35. Matth. 2.6. There were two Apostles that had this name, viz. 1. Iudas Iscariot that had the bag, and betrayed Christ, Matth. 10.4. And afterwards in some sort repented, Restored the thirty peeces, hanged himselfe, Matth. 27.3, 4, 5. So that he burst asunder in the middest, and all his bowels gushed out, and so he went to his own place, Act. 1.18, 25. 2. Iudas the brother of Iames, Luk. 6.16. Act. 1.13. viz. Of Iames the sonne of Alpheus, who was famous at Ierusalem among the Apostles, Act. 15. And 21.28. Where he is conceived to keep his chief abode, that he might teach the Iewes that resorted thither out of all Nations; unto which Iewes especially Iudas here seemes principally to write, and therefore mentions Iames. Bez. Annot. in Iud. 1. This Iudas is also called Lebbeus, i. e. Hearty; and surnamed Thaddaeus which is in Syriack the same with Iudas in Hebrew, Matth. 10.3. This Iudas is supposed to preach the Gospel in Mesopotamia, Pontus, Aegypt and Persia, where the Magi slew him for his free and faithfull reproving of their superstitions.
Authority of this Epistle, (though suspected heretofore by some, and that upon very inconsiderable grounds; Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. Yet) is now generally acknowledged to be Divine; especially considering that, 1. Iudas the brother of Iames, one of the Apostles wrote it, Iude 1. 2 Pet. 1.21. 2. The matter of it, yea and most of the very phrases and words, are the same with those of the second Epistle of Peter, if diligently compared. See the Parallel by P. Pareus Com. in Iude. 3. Antiquity have received this Epistle as Authentique, and part of the Divine Canon. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. and lib. 3. c. 22. Hieronym. in Catal. vir Illustr. Concil. Laodicens. Concil. Carthaginens. Athanasus, Augustine and others who recite the Catalogue of the Books of Scripture, reckon Iudes Epistle among the rest.
Arguments or Objections to the contrary are invalid. These the principall.
Object. 1. This Epistle recites Histories no where else to be found in Scripture, as the contending of Michael the Archangel, with the Devil about the body of Moses, Iude 9.
Answ. 1. Divers stories are pointed at in New Testament. Which we find not in the Old Testament. As that Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses, 2. Tim. 3.8. That at Mount Sinai, Moses said, I exceedingly feare and quake, Heb. 12.21. Shall therefore these Epistles Authority be suspected? 2. These stories (though formerly unwritten, but happily derived by tradition from hand to hand, yet) now are written by guidance of the Spirit of God. And the writing of them rather assures us of the truth of these Histories, then detracts from the Authority of the Books wherein they are recorded. 3. This story hath some footsteps in Deut. 34.9. Whereupon some say, The Angel would have buried Moses, but the Devil challenged Moses to be his own, because of his killing the Aegyptian, and therefore withstood him. But others better; God knowing Israels pronenesse to Idolatry, least they should commit Idolatry with Moses dead body (as after they did with the brazen Serpent) buried him no man knowing where, and the Devil, endeavouring to discover it, the Angell withstood him.
Obj. 2. Iude mentions the Prophesie of Enoch, ver. 14, 15. The Old Testament hath no such Prophecie.
Ans. 1. Some thinke in Iudes time there was a Canonicall Book of Enoch extant, as Tertull. lib. de Habit muliebr. Beda com. in Ep. Iud. 2. Others say better then they, suppose Enoch's Book were Apocryphall, yet in Apocryphall Books ther's some truth, and why may not this Apostle alleadge this passage out of Enochs Prophecie, without approving that whole Book, or disvesting this Epistle of its Authority; as well as the Author to the Hebrew, alleadge some passages out of the Book of Maccabees, Heb. 11. Or Paul some Sentences out of Heathen Authors and Poets, 1 Cor. 15.32. Tit. 1.12. Act. 17.28. 1 Tim. 2.12. & 5.23. Tit. 1.3. 3. Others think this Prophecy of Enoch was rather reall then verball, viz. Respecting the Order of the Patriarchs, that as Death by reason of sinne had Reigned over the six first Fathers, Adam Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalelel, Iared, but could not touch the seventh, Enoch: so death shall Reigne ove… the world 6000 yeeres, (which shall so long continue) but in the 7000. yeeres, eternall life shall begin; and death shall be swallowed up in Victory. 4. But others best of all understand here, as the Text seems evidently to carry it, Enochs verbal Prophecie, which though not written, yet Iude received by Tradition, or rather by Revelation of the same spirit of God by which Enoch prophecyed, and here recorded as part of the Divine Canon.
Obj. 3. Jude alleadges other Apostles sayings, ver. 17. Therefore seemes rather to be a Disciple of the Apostles, then an Apostle himselfe, especially seeing he cals not himselfe an Apostle, but the servant of Jesus Christ, ver. 1. And therefore this Epistle not authenticall.
Ans. 1. Though it could be proved Iude was no Apostle, yet it therefore followes not, his Epistle is not Authenticall. Mark and Luke, not Apostles, yet the three Books they wrote are of unquestionable authority. The authority of Books of Scriptur are not from the Penmen writing them, but from the Spirit of God inditing them. 2. Daniel cites Ieremiah, Dan. 9.2. Ezekiel cites Daniel, Ezek. 14.19. Were they therefore not Prophets, but Prophets Disciples? Peter alleadgeth Pauls Epistles, 2 Pet. 3.15, 16. Was Peter therefore no Apostle but onelyonly a Disciple? 3. Iudes alleadging the other Apostles deroga…es not from the authority of his Epistle, but proves that Iude wrote after both Paul and Peter, in whose Epistle these predictions are extant, 1 Tim. 4.1. &c. 2 Tim. 3.1. 2 Pet. 2.1. &c. 4. Finally, though Iudas here call not himselfe an Apostle, that argues not therefore he was not an Apostle. Iames in his Epistle, Iohn in his three Epistles, Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians, and in both his Epistles to the Thessalonians superscribe not themselves Apostles ▪ were they therefore no Apostles? But Iudas here stiles himselfe the brother of Iames, and that's full as much as if he had stiled himselfe an Apostle, for the texts are expresse that Iudas the Brother of Iames was one of the twelve Apostles. See Luk. 6.16. Act. 1.13.
Obj. 4. But Iude the Apostle taught in Persia, and therefore had he written this Epistle, he would rather have written it in the Persian, then Grecian tongue.
Ans. 1. Its not infallibly certain that Iude was in Persia when he wrote this Epistle. 2. No necessity of the Apostles writing in the language of the people with whom they then lived. Matthew lived among the Ethiopians, Paul at Rome when he wrote some of his Epistles, yet they wrote not in Ethiopick or Latin, but in Greek. Greek being then the most common language in the world, the Holy Ghost would have Greek to be the Originall language for New Testament, as the Hebrew especially for the Old. And Iudes Epistle is Catholique or Generall, and therefore was written in Greek the generall tongue.
When and Where this Epistle was written is uncertaine. Some think this Apostle was in Persia, or Asia Minor when he wrote it, viz. A yeere before he dyed, and that he there dyed, anno 68. after Christ. Niceph. l. 4. c. 40.44. Probably he wrote after both Paul and Peter, to whose writings he seems to have reference, v. 17. the whole Epistle is as an Abstract of Peters second Epistle.
Occasion, seems from the current of the Epistle, to be those abominable heresies of the Simonians, Nicolaitanes, Gnosticks, &c. abounding in those times times who held Sin to be indifferent, womē & al things to be common, &c. Oecumen. Epiphan. in Haeres. Gnostic. Sec. Iud. 3.4.
Scope. To warne all the faithfull in those times of the cursed and detestable Hereticks and Seducers that were cunningly crept in among them, that they contend earnestly for the truth against all their damnable errours and Heresies; and for purity and holinesse of life, against all their impure lustfull licentious and ungodly p…actices. Iude 3, 4, 8, 10, 20, 21.
Principall parts. To this end are,
I. Inscription of the whole Epistle, expressing, 1. Penman who wrote this Epistle. 2. Parties to whom it was written. 3. The Salutation of them, ver. 1, 2.
II. The substance of the Epistle, wherein are laid down,
1. The maine Proposition or Exhortation, To contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints ver. 3. There being so many lascivious hereticall men crept in among them, ver. 4.
2. Arguments enforcing this exhortation upon them, against these lascivious Heritiques, demonstrating the damnablenesse and destructivenesse of their wayes,
1. By examples of Gods vengeance for like impieties and impurities in former times, viz. Upon Israel for unbeliefe, ver. 5. Upon Angels for Apostacy, ver. Upon Sodom and Gomorrha &c. For their lusts, ver. 7. These examples he applyes to these Seducers,
1. Describing them by their, 1. Uncleannesse, ver. 8. 2. Despising and reproaching Magistrates, ver. 8, 9. 3. Impudency in reviling what they know not, ver. 10. 4. Bruitish intemperance in carnall pleasures, ver. 10. 5. Cruelty to their brethren. 6. Covetousnesse. 7. Seditiousnesse, ver. 11. 8. Epicurisme in meats and drinks, ver. 12. 9. Hypocrisie. 10. Instability. 11. Deadnesse and Barrennesse to all good fruit, ver. 12. 12. Wrathfulnesse. 13. Shamefull uncleannesse. 14. Levity and inconstancy, ver. 13.
2. Threatning them, in generall with woe, ver. 11, in particular with eternall destruction, ver. 13.
2. By Testimonies,
1. Of Enoch. ver. 14.15. To which he adds further descriptions of their viciousnesse, ver. 16.
2. Of the Apostles themselves. v. 17, 18. where he further describes these Heretiques by their Separation from Church assemblies, by their want of Gods Spirit. v. 9.
3. Hortatory Directions by way of Remedy, for 1. Mutuall edification. 2. Prayer, v. 20. 3. Love of God, ver. 21. 4. Different course to be taken by them in recovering severall persons from seducements, v. 22, 23. 5. Zeale against all impurity, v. 23
III. Conclusion of the whole Epistle with adoxology to God, who is able to keep them without spot and blamelesse, &c. v. 24, 25.