So perfectly destitute are the gospel and apostolic history, of the slightest account of this apostle’s life and actions, that his whole biography may be considered completed in the mere settlement of his name and identity. The only word that has been preserved as coming from his lips, is recorded in John’s account of the parting discourses of Jesus to his disciples, on the eve of his crucifixion. Jesus was promising them that the love of God should be the sign and the reward of him who faithfully kept his commandments,——“He that holds and keeps my commandments, is the man that loves me; and he that loves me shall be loved by my Father; and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” These words constituted the occasion of the remark of Judas, thus recorded by John. “Judas (not Iscariot) says to him, ‘Lord! how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us as thou dost not to the world?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him.’” A natural inquiry, aptly and happily suggested, and most clearly and satisfactorily answered, in the plain but illustrative words of the divine teacher! Would that the honest inquirer after the true, simple meaning of the words of God, might have his painful researches through the wisdom of ages, as well rewarded as did the favored hearers of Jesus! And would that the trying efforts of critical thought might end in a result so brilliant and so cheering!
HIS EPISTLE.
The solitary monument and testimony of his apostolic labors, are found in that brief, but strongly characterized and peculiar writing, which bears his name, and forms the last portion, but one, of the modern scriptural canon. Short as it is, and obscure too, by the numerous references it contains, to local and temporary circumstances, there is much expressed in this little portion of the apostolic writings, which is highly interesting to the inquirer into the darker portions of the earliest Christian history.
Several very remarkable circumstances in this epistle, have, from the earliest ages of Christian theology, excited great inquiry among writers, and in many cases have not only led commentators and critics to pronounce the work very suspicious in its character, but even absolutely to condemn it as unworthy of a place in the sacred canon. One of these circumstances is, that the writer quotes apocryphal books of a mystical and superstitious character, that have never been received by Christians or Jews, as possessing any divine authority, nor as entitled to any regard whatever in religious matters. At least two distinct quotations from these confessedly fictitious writings, are found in this brief epistle. The first is from the book of Enoch, which has been preserved even to the present day, in the Ethiopic translation; the original Hebrew having been irrecoverably lost. Some of the highest authorities in orthodoxy and in learning have pronounced the original to have been a very ancient writing;——a forgery, indeed, since it professed to be the writing of Enoch himself,——but made up in the earliest ages of Rabbinical literature, after the Old Testament canon was completed, but before any portion of the New Testament was written,——probably some years before the Christian era, though the means of ascertaining its exact date are wanting. Another quotation, equally remarkable, occurs in this epistle, without any mention being made, however, of the exact source from which the passage has been drawn; and the point is at present a subject of dispute,——as references have been made by different authorities, ancient and modern, to different apocryphal Jewish books, which contain similar passages. But the most valuable authorities, both ancient and modern, decide it to be a work now universally allowed to be apocryphal,——“the Ascension of Moses,” which is directly quoted as authority on a subject altogether removed from human knowledge, and on which no testimony could be of any value, except it were derived directly and solely from the sources of inspiration. The consequence of these references to these two doubtful authorities, is, that many of the critical examiners of this epistle, in all ages, have felt themselves justified in condemning it.
Tertullian (A. D. 200) is the earliest writer who has distinctly quoted this epistle. He refers to it in connection with the quotation from the book of Enoch. “Hence it is that Enoch is quoted by the apostle Jude.” (De cultu feminarum, 3.) Clement of Alexandria also repeatedly quotes the epistle of Jude as an apostolic writing. Origen (A. D. 230,) very clearly expresses his opinion in favor of this epistle as the production of Jude, the brother of Jesus. In his commentary on Matthew xiii. 55, where James, Simon and Jude are mentioned, he says, “Jude wrote an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words of heavenly grace, who, at the beginning says, ‘Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.’” Origen thought everything connected with this epistle, of such high authority, that he considered the apocryphal book of “the Ascension of Moses,” a work of authority, because it had been quoted by Jude, (verse 9.) He confesses however, that there were some who doubted the authenticity of the epistle of Jude; and that this was the fact, appears still more distinctly from the account of the apostolic writings, given by Eusebius, (A. D. 320,) who sets it down among the disputed writings. The ancient Syriac version (executed before A. D. 100,) rejects this as well as the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. After the fourth century all these became universally established in the Greek and Latin churches. The great Michaelis however, utterly condemns it as probably a forgery. (Introduction, IV. xxix. 5.)
The clearest statement of the character of this reference to the book of Enoch, is given by Hug’s translator, Dr. Wait. (Introduction. Vol. II. p. 618, note.)
“This manifestly appears to have been the reason why Jude cited apocryphal works in his epistle, viz. for the sake of refuting their own assertions from those productions, which, like the rest of their nation, they most probably respected. For this purpose the book of Enoch was peculiarly calculated, since in the midst of all its ineptiae and absurdities, this point, and the orders of the spiritual world, are strongly urged and discussed in it. It is irrelevant to the inquiry, how much of the present book existed at this time, for that it was framed by different writers, and at different periods, no critic can deny; yet that this was the leading character of the work, and that these were the prominent dogmata of those parts which were then in existence, we have every presumptive evidence. The Hebrew names of angels, &c., such as the Ophanim, plainly indicate it to have been a translation from some lost Jewish original, which was doubtless known both to Peter and to Jude; nor can the unprejudiced examiner of these epistles well hesitate to acknowledge Hug’s explanation of them to be the most correct and the most reasonable.”
The whole defense of the epistle against these imputations, may be grounded upon the supposition, that the apostle was writing against a peculiar class of heretics, who did acknowledge these apocryphal books to be of divine authority, and to whom he might quote these with a view to show, that even by their own standards of truth, their errors of doctrine and life must be condemned. The sect of the Gnostics has been already mentioned in the life of John, as being the first ever known to have perverted the purity of Christian doctrine, by heresy. These heretics certainly are not very fully described in those few passages of this short epistle that are directed at the errors of doctrine; but the character of those errors which Jude denounces, is accordant with what is known of some of the prominent peculiarities of the Gnostics. But whatever may have been the particular character of these heretics, it is evident that they must, like the great majority of the Jews in those days, have acknowledged the divine authority of these ancient apocryphal writings; and the apostle was therefore right in making use of quotations from these works, to refute their very remarkable errors. The evils which he denounced, however, were not merely of a speculative character; but he more especially condemns their gross immoralities, as a scandal and an outrage on the purity of the Christian assemblies with which they still associated. In all those passages where these vices are referred to, it will be observed that both immoralities and doctrinal errors are included in one common condemnation, which shows that both were inseparably connected in the conduct of those heretics whom the writer condemns. This circumstance also does much to identify them with some of the Gnostical sects before alluded to,——more especially with the Nicolaitans, as they are called by John in the beginning of the Apocalypse, where he is addressing the church of Pergamos. In respect to this very remarkable peculiarity of a vicious and abominable life, combined with speculative errors, the ancient Christian writers very fully describe the Nicolaitans; and their accounts are so unanimous, and their accusations so definite, that it is just and reasonable to consider this epistle as directed particularly against them.
Nicolaitans.——An allusion has already been made to this sect in the life of John, but they deserve a distinct reference here also, as they are so distinctly mentioned in Jude’s epistle. The explanation of the name which in the former passage (page [343],) was crowded out by other matters prolonging that part of the work beyond its due limits, may here be given most satisfactorily, in the words of the learned Dr. Hug. (Introduction, Vol. II. note, § 182, original, § 174, translation.)
“The arguments of those who decide them to have been the Nicolaitans, according to my opinion, are at present the following:——John in the Apocalypse describes the Nicolaitans nearly as the heretics are here represented to us, with the same comparison, and with the same vices; persons who exercise the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to ensnare the children of Israel, and to induce them to partake of idolatrous sacrifices, and to fornicate, (Acts ii. 14: Jude 2: 2 Peter ii. 15.) Even בלעם according to its derivation, is equivalent to Νίκολαος. They also certainly denied the Lord’s creation and government of the world. Alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini ... et eam conditionem, quae est secundum nos non a primo Deo factam, sed a Virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecta. (Irenaeus L. iii. c. 11.) If now all corporeal and material existence has its origin from the Creator of the world, who is a very imperfect and gross spirit, it flows naturally from this notion, that they could not admit a corporeal resuscitation by the agency of the Supreme Being, or by the agency of Jesus, in a universal day of judgment. With respect to the spiritual world, they also actually taught such absurdities, that it must be said of them δοξας βλασφημοῦσι; for they supposed, Aeones quosdam turpitudinis natos; et complexus, et permixtiones execrabiles, et obscaenas. (Tertullianus in append. ad Lib. de praescript. c. 46.) But, as to their excesses and abominable mode of life, the accounts of the ancients are so unanimous, and the accusations are so constituted, that the two apostolic epistles may have most pertinently referred to them.”