Jude

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF

INTRODUCTION

AUTHOR.--He calls himself in the address "the

servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." See

Introduction

to the Epistle of James, in proof of James the apostle,

and James the Lord's brother, the bishop of Jerusalem, being one

and the same person.

Ga 1:19

alone seems to me to prove this. Similarly, Jude the brother of our

Lord, and Jude the apostle, seem to be one and the same. JEROME [Against Helvidius], rightly maintains that

Cleophas (the same as Alphæus). From

1Co 9:5

(as "brethren of the Lord" stands between "other apostles" and

"Cephas"), it seems natural to think that the brethren of the

Lord are distinguished from the apostles only because all

his brethren were not apostles, but only James and Jude. Jude's reason

for calling himself "brother of James," was that James, as bishop of

Jerusalem, was better known than himself. Had he been, in the strict

sense, brother of our Lord, he probably would have so entitled

himself. His omission of mention of his apostleship is no proof

that he was not an apostle; for so also James omits it in his heading;

and Paul, in his Epistles to the Philippians, Thessalonians, and

Philemon, omits it. Had the writer been a counterfeiter of the apostle

Jude, he would doubtless have called himself an "apostle." He was

called also Lebbæus and Thaddeus, probably to distinguish him

from Judas Iscariot, the traitor. Lebbæus, from Hebrew

"leeb," "heart," means courageous. Thaddeus is the same

as Theudas, from Hebrew "thad," the "breast." Luke and

John, writing later than Matthew, when there would be no confusion

between him and Judas Iscariot, give his name Judas. The only

circumstance relating to him recorded in the Gospels occurs in

Joh 14:22,

"Judas saith unto Him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that Thou wilt

manifest Thyself unto us, and not unto the world?"

JEROME [Commentary on Matthew] says that he

was sent to Edessa, to Abgarus, king of Osroene, or Edessa, and that he

preached in Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia, in which last

country he suffered martyrdom. The story is told on EUSEBIUS' authority, that Abgarus, on his sickbed, having

heard of Jesus' power to heal, sent to beg Him to come and cure him, to

which the Lord replied, praising his faith, that though he had not seen

the Saviour, he yet believed; adding, "As for what thou hast written,

that I should come to thee, it is necessary that all those things for

which I was sent should be fulfilled by Me in this place, and that

having filled them I should be received up to Him that sent Me. When,

therefore, I shall be received into heaven, I will send unto thee some

one of My disciples who shall both heal thy distemper and give life to

thee and those with thee." Thomas is accordingly said to have been

inspired to send Thaddeus for the cure and baptism of Abgarus. The

letters are said to have been shown Thaddeus among the archives of

Edessa. It is possible such a message was verbally sent, and the

substance of it registered in writing afterwards (compare

2Ki 5:1-27;

and Mt 15:22).

HEGESIPPUS (in EUSEBIUS

[Ecclesiastical History, 3.20]) states that when Domitian

inquired after David's posterity, some grandsons of Jude, called the

Lord's brother, were brought into his presence. Being asked as to their

possessions, they said that they had thirty-nine acres of the value of

nine thousand denarii, out of which they paid him taxes, and lived by

the labor of their hands, a proof of which they gave by showing the

hardness of their hands. Being interrogated as to Christ and His

kingdom, they replied that it was not of this world, but heavenly; and

that it would be manifested at the end of the world, when He would come

in glory to judge the living and the dead.

AUTHENTICITY.--EUSEBIUS

[Ecclesiastical History, 3.25], reckons it among the

Antilegomena or controverted Scriptures, "though

recognized by the majority." The reference to the contest of Michael,

the archangel, with the devil, for the body of Moses, not mentioned

elsewhere in the Old Testament, but found in the apocryphal

"Book of Enoch," probably raised doubts as to its authenticity, as

JEROME [On Illustrious Men, 4] says.

Moreover, its not being addressed to one particular Church, or

individual, caused it not to be so immediately recognized as canonical.

A counterfeiter would have avoided using what did not occur in the Old

Testament, and which might be regarded as apocryphal.

As to the book of Enoch, if quoted by Jude, his quotation of a passage

from it gives an inspired sanction only to the truth of that

passage, not to the whole book; just as Paul, by inspiration,

sanctions particular sentiments from ARATUS,

EPIMENIDES, and MENANDER, but

not all their writings. I think, rather as there is some slight

variation between Jude's statement and that of the book of Enoch, that

Jude, though probably not ignorant of the book of Enoch, stamps with

inspired sanction the current tradition of the Jews as to Enoch's

prophecies; just as Paul mentions the names of the Egyptian magicians,

"Jannes and Jambres"

(2Ti 3:8),

not mentioned in the Old Testament. At all events, the prophecy

ascribed to Enoch by Jude was really his, being sanctioned as such by

this inspired writer. So also the narration as to the archangel

Michael's dispute with Satan concerning the body of Moses, is by Jude's

inspired authority

(Jude 9)

declared true. The book of Enoch is quoted by

JUSTIN

MARTYR,

IRENÆUS,

CLEMENT OF

ALEXANDRIA, &c. Bruce, the Abyssinian traveller,

brought home three copies of it in Ethiopic, from Alexandria, of

which Archbishop Lawrence, in 1821, gave an English translation. The

Ethiopic was a version from the Greek, and the

Greek doubtless a version from the Hebrew, as the names

of the angels in it show. The Apostolic Constitutions, ORIGEN [Against Celsus], JEROME, and AUGUSTINE, pronounce it

not canonical. Yet it is in the main edifying, vindicating God's

government of the world, natural and spiritual, and contradicting none

of the Scripture statements. The name Jesus never occurs, though

"Son of man," so often given to Messiah in the Gospels, is frequent,

and terms are used expressive of His dignity, character, and acts,

exceeding the views of Messiah in any other Jewish book. The writer

seems to have been a Jew who had become thoroughly imbued with the

sacred writings of Daniel. And, though many coincidences occur between

its sentiments and the New Testament, the Messianic portions are not

distinct enough to prove that the writer knew the New Testament.

Rather, he seems to have immediately preceded Christ's coming, about

the time of Herod the Great, and so gives us a most interesting view of

believing Jews' opinions before the advent of our Lord. The Trinity is

recognized (Enoch 60:13,14). Messiah is "the elect One" existing from

eternity (Enoch 48:2,3,5); "All kings shall fall down before Him, and

worship and fix their hopes on this Son of man" (Enoch 61:10-13). He is

the object of worship (Enoch 48:3,4); He is the supreme Judge (Enoch

60:10,11; 68:38,39). There shall be a future state of retribution

(Enoch 93:8,9; 94:2,4; 95; 96; 99; 103); The eternity of future

punishment (Enoch 103:5). VOLKMAR, in ALFORD, thinks the book was written at the time of the

sedition of Barchochebas (A.D. 132), by a follower

of Rabbi Akiba, the upholder of that impostor. This would make the book

Antichristian in its origin. If this date be correct, doubtless it

copied some things from Jude, giving them the Jewish, not the

Christian, coloring.

EUSEBIUS [Demonstration of the Gospel, 3.5]

remarks, it accords with John's humility that in Second and Third John

he calls himself "the elder." For the same reason James and Jude call

themselves "servants of Jesus Christ." CLEMENT OF

ALEXANDRIA [Adumbrations, in Epistle of

Jude, p. 1007] says, "Jude, through reverential awe, did not call

himself brother, but servant, of Jesus Christ, and

brother of James."

TERTULLIAN [On the Apparel of Women, 3]

cites the Epistle as that of the apostle James.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA in

Miscellanies [3.2.11] quotes

Jude 8, 17

as Scripture, in The Instructor [3.8.44],

Jude 5.

The MURATORI fragment asserts its canonicity

[ROUTH, Sacred Fragments, 1.306].

ORIGEN [Commentary on Matthew 13:55] says,

"Jude wrote an Epistle of few lines, but one filled full of the strong

words of heavenly grace." Also, in his Commentary on Matthew

22:23, ORIGEN quotes

Jude 6;

and on Matthew 18:10, he quotes