Identification of the writer of this epistle is very uncertain. The only candidates worth considering are Judas the apostle (Luke 6:16) and Judas the half-brother of the Lord (Matt. 13:55).

The first of these is peremptorily ruled out by most commentators on the ground that one who was himself an apostle would not write: “Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 17). But why shouldn’t he? There is a very close parallel in 2 Peter 3:2: “….that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of our Lord and Saviour through your apostles”. If Peter could write about “your apostles”, why should not one of his fellow apostles do the same?

There is also the consideration that if this Jude were the apostle, then all the epistles of the New Testament came from apostolic pens. (The strength of the case for regarding the Epistle of James as written by the son of Zebedee is not to be set aside.)

On the other hand, this Jude is explicitly “brother of James”. But by analogy with “Judas Iscariot of Simon” (John 6:71), “Judas of James” (Luke 6:16) appears to mean “son of James”, and not “brother of James”. If it can mean “brother of James”, the point is settled.

What grounds are there for identifying Jude with the son of Mary and Joseph (Matt. 13:55)? Exactly none, except that he appears to be the only alternative to the Judas just discussed.

There is, of course, the possibility of the writer being some other Judas of whom nothing is known, but the likelihood of this is mighty small.

The date of the epistle has to be inferred from the slight incidental indications which the text affords.

It is surely a valid argument that Jude wrote before the troubles of A.D. 70, for had he written after that date, with the intention in his mind (see Chapter 3), he could hardly have let the destruction of the temple go unmentioned.

Indeed, there seem to be several prophetic hints in the epistle of impending judgement. God destroyed His saved people “who believed not” (v. 5). A judgement of being “plucked up by the roots”, such as Jesus foretold regarding Jewish opposition to the gospel, is implied (v. 12). “Wandering stars, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness of the ages” (v. 13) seems very appropriate to the dispersion of Israel.

Peter’s prophecy concerning evil men “in the last days” (2 Pet. 3:3) is picked up by Jude as having a fulfilment in the corrupt movement he excoriated: “These be they….” (vv. 18,19). What “last days” if not the last days of the temple? (With a further fulfilment, certainly, in other “last days”, at the coming of the Lord: see Chapter 9 on this.)

Why did Jude write as he did, and against whom?

The thesis is developed in Chapter 3 and elsewhere that the great enemy of the gospel in the first century was neither Jewish nor Roman persecution, but the systematic infiltration of the ecclesia, as part of an insidious Judaistic campaign, by unscrupulous Jews who were set on wrecking this new movement from within.

The methods employed were, in the main, threefold:

1. The insidious corruption of Christian morals: “lasciviousness…. fornication… .defiling the flesh….they corrupt (the ecclesia)….twice dead” (vv. 4,7,8,10,12).
2. Abrupt rejection of the authority of the apostles, and the exaltation of other leaders in their place: “speak evil of dignities….hard speeches….murmurers, complainers….having men’s persons in admiration” (vv. 8,15,16).
3. One part of the campaign which does not come in for mention in Jude, but which caused Paul much trouble elsewhere, was an insistence that faith in Christ must be bolstered up with observance of the Law of Moses.

One has the impression that the recipients of the letter were Jewish believers, and probably Jews of the Holy Land. Some of the phrases seem to take on special meaning from this point of view. But there is not enough to go on regarding this.

As a warning against giving any kind of encouragement to the evil men just denounced, Jude now proceeds to list Old Testament examples of God’s judgement on those who in time past behaved in a similar wilful fashion.

His introductory phrase reads strangely: “though ye know this once for all”. Why not “these”, since he is about to cite three examples? And “once for all” comes in so unnaturally as to provoke the speculation that an ellipsis is intended: ‘though you know this, I make the point once for all’, as who should say: ‘If this exhortation does not register in your minds as serious, needful and right, I have nothing more to add’.

For “this”, not a few manuscripts read “all things”, meaning in this context ‘all the examples I am about to cite’.

Nevertheless ‘I am set on reminding you’ about them. (In the New Testament this Greek verb ‘to be set on’ more often has the flavour ‘decide’ than ‘desire’: R.V.) The apostle Peter, with his own bitter experience rarely out of mind (Mark 14:72), is most urgent to remind his readers of the important truths associated with their faith (2 Pet. 1:12,13,15; 3:1,2; cp. also Rom. 15:15).

Jude’s reminders are of three signal examples of divine judgement on wilful sinners:

1. Israel in the wilderness (v. 5),
2. The apostate “angels” (v. 6),
3. Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7).

It may be that the first of these is a follow-on from a reminiscence (v. 4) of how in the wilderness Israel’s sin regarding the golden calf turned the grace of God into lasciviousness.

But now (v. 5) the emphasis is different: “The Lord, having saved the people (of Israel) out of Egypt, a second time destroyed them that believed not.” A year after leaving Egypt Israel came to the borders of the Land of Promise, but there, because they faithlessly accepted the discouragements of the ten spies instead of the inspiring confidence of the two, they were turned back into the wilderness, and that generation perished there. Inheritance came forty years later.

That unexpected phrase “a second time” seems to refer to the fact that when Israel came to the shores of the Red Sea, then (even after seeing all God’s signs in Egypt!) they seemed incapable of faith, but murmured against Moses and against the Lord (Exod. 14:10-12). Nevertheless, even in spite of this unworthy reaction, they were delivered. But when they came to the borders of Canaan and showed a like (or worse) lack of faith — “a second time” — now their doom was pronounced (Num. 14:32,33).

It may be that this, not mentioned in 2 Peter 2, is brought in here to hint at a more specific warning to the “ungodly men” who had “crept in privily” to undermine the faith in a prophet like unto Moses. Forty years after the Passover deliverance the unbelievers were all dead. Then what would come upon these others forty years after the sacrifice of the Lamb of God?

In their discussion of the next example, the commentaries make a vague, bewildering, unsatisfactory mess of things. Who were these “angels which kept not their first estate”? Either there is an imaginative attempt to harness the denunciation of Genesis 6:2 of the “sons of God” who intermarried with the “daughters of men” and so brought judgement on the world, or else a link is suggested with the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which refers to rebellious angels in chains: ‘Bind them for seventy years under the earth until the Day of Judgement’. (Observe the inconsistency of orthodoxy regarding fallen angels. Here they are kept shut up until the Day of Judgement. In 1 Peter 5:8 at least one of them is at large “as a roaring lion” — whose roar nobody has ever heard!)

The first of these ‘explanations’ starts on the wrong foot by making a wrong identification of ‘the sons of God’. And in Genesis 6 there is no hint of these sinners being kept in chains and in darkness.

The second creates vast problems by having angelic beings who are given to rebellion against the Almighty (there is no sign of this impossible concept anywhere else in the Bible), and there is also the difficulty as to why such beings should be kept shut up under the earth.

Also, regarding both explanations, there is the question of relevance to the situation Jude was seeking to cope with.

On the other hand, identification with the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Num. 16) appears to satisfy every phrase that is used:

1. The first word of verse 6 — “and” — provides a hint, for this is not the usual Greek word kai, but the less frequent te, which is commonly employed to link together items which go naturally together — as ‘man and wife’, ‘buttercups and daisies’, ‘fish and chips’. Thus the use of te at the beginning of verse 6 points to a definite link with Israel in the wilderness (v. 5).
2. They “kept not their first estate” — R.V. “their own principality” — fits Korah and his fellow-conspirators perfectly, for they were all princes in Israel (Num. 16:1,2).
3. They “left their own habitation” — the divinely appointed tabernacle — in order to set up a centre of worship of their own devising (Num. 16:24,27).
4. “Kept in everlasting chains under darkness” is supplemented in 2 Peter 2:4 with “cast them down to Tartarus”. This is as apt a description as could be of the fate of Korah — the earth opened, and he and his conspirators plunged into the bowels of the earth. (It is fairly obvious that “chains of darkness” in Peter should really be as R.V.: “pits — or caves — of darkness”. There is only one letter difference in the Greek reading, and good manuscript support for it.)

Other details worth noting are these:

5. The effective use of “kept” — they kept not their own principality, so they are kept in darkness till the Day of Judgement.
6. For “everlasting” Jude seems deliberately to have chosen a word almost identical with ‘Hades’, matching ‘Tartarus’ in Peter.
7. “The judgement of the great day” uses the same phrase as in Revelation 6:17; “The great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?”

The third Biblical example is more straightforward, and yet in a way more startling — that Jews in the Faith should be compared to men of Sodom. Yet Jude had a good precedent, for Jesus made similar comparison when Jewish cities rejected his message (Matt. 11:23,24; 10:15). And if these infiltrators into the Faith, now being denounced by Jude, used as one of their main tactics a “turning of the grace of God into lasciviousness”, there would be aptness enough in the parallel; hence the phrase: “in like manner”. Indeed, Jude sets it out bluntly enough: “giving themselves over to fornication, and going after (Greek opiso) strange flesh”, i.e. sexual perversion (Gen. 19:5; the Greek verb, ekporneuo, seems to emphasise this).

There is point also in the mention of “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them) (five in all), as intended to prepare Jewish readers for the devastation of the entire Land. The parallel goes even further, for just as angels came to rescue Lot and his family out of Sodom, so also Jesus had warned his disciples: “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea fell to the mountains….” (Luke 21:20,21).

Thus the cities of the plain are “beforehand set forth” (Greek) as an example (a sample of wares laid out), “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”. Not that the fire itself is eternal, but that it is eternal in its consequences, as Peter’s phrase implies: ‘turning them to ashes’.

Jude goes on to emphasise other features of this grim parable: “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise lordship (singular), and blaspheme glories (plural).” All of these phrases link up easily with the purple narrative of Genesis 19:

1. “Defile the flesh” — their sodomy.
2. “Despise lordship” — their attitude to Lot who “sat in the gate” and who “judged”. (The Hebrew phrase in verse 9 is very emphatic.)
3. “Blaspheme glories” — their attitude to the angels.
4. Is it possible that “dreamers” alludes to the blindness inflicted on them? Or that those contemporaries that Jude wrote against claimed to have Spirit-guided revelations: “your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17)?

Next comes yet another illustration — Biblical or non-Biblical? — to expose the evil men against whom Jude writes. Michael the archangel, in disputation with the devil about the body of Moses, is content to leave the issue in God’s hands: “The Lord rebuke thee”.

The parallel passage in Peter runs thus: “Presumptuous are they, not afraid to speak evil of dignities (glories); whereas angels which are greater (than they?) in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord” (2:10,11).

The modernists have a field day here. Without any evidence (in fact, against the evidence, as will be seen by and by), they assume that an apocryphal work, ‘The Assumption of Moses’, was already in existence and that Jude was alluding to it in this place.

What are the facts about this mysterious writing? All that is known definitely about it is that a few short quotations are made from it by some of the early fathers and that one or two of them (Origen, Cement of Alexandria) assert that Jude 9 quotes or alludes to it. This piece about the body of Moses is not included in any of the known quotes, but a marginal addition to a Jude manuscript has come to light which is probably from ‘The Assumption of Moses’, and it reads thus:

“When Moses had died on the mountain, the archangel Michael was sent to transfer the body. But the devil resisted, wanting to cheat, saying that the body was his as master of the material (man), at any rate because he (Moses) had killed the Egyptian (Exod. 2:12), having blasphemed against the holy man and having proclaimed him a murderer. The angel, not bringing the blasphemy against the holy man, said to the devil: ‘The Lord rebuke thee’.”

There is a common assumption by the critics that the Assumption of Moses precedes Jude and is quoted by him. Yet the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, for Peter states that this encounter between angel and “devil” took place “before the Lord”, but in the quote just given “the archangel Michael was sent” (i.e. from God). So it looks very much as though the Jude passage was misunderstood by this apocryphal writer and by him was blown up into an imaginative and theologically absurd story.

The correct and thoroughly satisfying explanation of Jude 9 gives the coup de grace to any idea of dependence on The Assumption of Moses.

An unmistakable clue as to the meaning is given in the words: “The Lord rebuke thee”, which are a straight quote from Zechariah 3:2:

“And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan….is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments….” (vv. 1-3).

The background to this prophecy is the attempt on the part of some who returned from Babylon to get themselves included in the priesthood of the new temple (Ezra 2:61-63). Lack of unimpeachable genealogy led to their exclusion “until there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim” to give a firm divine decision. Evidently, in reaction from this, the men so excluded retorted against Joshua that by the same token he was disqualified from being high priest. Where were his true high priestly robes?

In the Zechariah vision, these grumblers are the Satan. Joshua is vindicated not by the Lord’s angel, who himself is content to await divine decision, but by Jehovah Himself. Joshua is given new robes, and there is set before him (in the breastplate — so the Hebrew text implies) the stone of decision belonging to the Urim and Thummim (v. 9).

The verbal contacts and similarities between Jude 9 and Zechariah 3 are worth listing:

NOTES:

1. Michael: This naming of the angel comes easily from the familiar knowledge that Michael is the archangel to whom the care and guidance of Israel is specially entrusted: “the chief prince which stands for the children of thy people” — “Michael your prince” (Dan. 12:1; 10:21).
2. The devil: Peter clearly understood this “devil” to be a group of adversaries to the Truth: “angels bring not a railing accusation against them”. In any case, if a superhuman devil, what relevance is there in this example?
3. Contending: This word is repeated in the Greek text of v. 22.

These parallels are fairly convincing — all except the first. It seems a far cry from “Joshua the high priest” to “the body of Moses”. But in actual fact this link is easy, for the word translated “body” (Greek: soma) carries a double meaning (like cricket, barrow, mould, mite in English — there are hundreds of them). Besides meaning “body”, soma also means “slave, servant”: compare the use of “hands” for “employees” in Victorian English. There are Biblical examples of this: Revelation 18:3 (see R.V.); Hebrews 10:5 = Psalm 40:6 = Exodus 21:6; and in Galatians 6:17 and Romans 6:6; 8:23, Paul plays with the double meaning of the word.

Thus “the body of Moses” can equally well be an allusion to the high priest, ‘the servant or slave of Moses’, since he especially was dedicated to the service of Moses’ Law.

If this identification be accepted (and it certainly has more supporting evidence than any rival explanation) it is now possible to make sense of the allusion as an integral part of Jude’s argument running through four Biblical examples:

1. As Israel died in the wilderness through lack of faith in the promises of God, s0 also will these Judaisers, who fail to make faith in Christ their supreme virtue. As Israel chose to follow as leaders men without faith, so these also despise the true leaders God has given.
2. As Korah and his fellow rebels met with summary judgement because they spurned true men of God, so also will these false believers (even though they be men of high degree: cp. 2 Cor. 11:18,22ff) who reject the counsel and authority of Christ-appointed apostles.
3. Sodom and the rest perished cataclysmically because of wilful unrepentant immorality. These more recent false teachers who assert that there is nothing wrong with fornication (because the grace of God permits self-indulgence) will have their evil philosophy exposed by a judgement on Jerusalem for its increasing and comparable wickedness. And Sodom’s rejection of Lot’s open reproof and of the authority of angels is matched by current scorning of apostolic teaching and the supremacy of Holy Scripture.
4. Those who question the validity of the high priesthood of the Messiah, the servant of Moses, will find themselves thrust out from God’s presence. But neither angel of God nor appointed apostle takes action against these rejectors. The Lord Himself will rebuke them. And right soon He did, through the judgements of A.D. 70.

The mild example of Michael the archangel (v. 9) leaving judgement of evil men in the hands of the Almighty plainly meant that in the first century even authorised church leaders did not feel warranted in applying drastic sanctions to enemies of the Truth within the camp of the Truth. But that did not mean that nothing must be done to expose the fifth column in the ranks of the Lord. So Jude speaks out in terms of withering disapproval: “But these speak evil of those things which they know not.” What things? The best hint comes from the antithesis, pointedly suggested by the Greek text, in the rest of the verse: “but what they know naturally, as unreasoning creatures, by these things they corrupt (their brethren)”. Clearly the ellipsis in the text should be filled out in the way suggested here, for the corruption of the church was Jude’s great fear.

Reading between the lines, it is possible now to see that this problematical verse may be paraphrased on these lines: ‘These men have no experience of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, yet they speak in derogatory fashion about ecclesial leaders who do have this divine guidance. On the other hand, knowing little or nothing of the real Truth in Christ, they do their utmost to pervert the brethren by pretending to revelations which in actual fact they themselves have made up.’

To drive home this repudiation, there follow three additional Biblical examples of opposition to the Truth — Cain, Balaam and Korah.

Cain destroyed his brother, then “repented” (see “Genesis 1-4”, H.A.W.), then went away from the only source of forgiveness, and with his fellows turned to renewed violence against the Truth. In like fashion, these men, who had been on the side of Christ’s crucifiers, came (insincerely: Gal. 2:4) to the fellowship of the Lord’s people, but now were showing themselves in their true colours, and would end up with open violence against the Faith; but they would also end up experiencing the open reprobation of God.

Balaam was a true prophet who showed his unworthiness by his hostility to God’s people. Even though divine inspiration prophesied good concerning them he chose to side with their enemies just because of material self-interest. He encouraged a vile plot against the people of the Lord, seducing them into apostasy through the worst forms of immorality, and for that he died ignominiously (Num. 31:8, 16). In all these respects he prefigured the men Jude now took to task. They knew the truth and knew that it was the Truth. Yet for the basest reasons they behaved as enemies and sowed foul seeds of evil in the church (Matt. 13:25) by their plausible teaching that there was no harm in fornication, that it was not amiss to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. For this would they escape the wrath of God any more than did Balaam?

“Ran greedily after the error of Balaam” is surely a mistranslation. The more exact reading should be: ‘they poured themselves out’, possibly with allusion to the pretended prophecies of these false ‘men of God’.

It is useful to pause here and ocmpare the Biblical illustrations used by Peter and Jude:

In most of these, the two writers are in step with each other. But it is noteworthy that Peter’s allusion to the Flood is ignored by Jude; but on the other hand, instead of Peter’s extended comment regarding Balaam, Jude has three quickfire references to Cain, Balaam and Korah.

Also, although the evidence of vv. 17,18 seems emphatic that Jude wrote with 2 Peter before his eyes, one of the foregoing Biblical examples does not seem to agree readily with such an assumption:

In this instance it is difficult to believe that Jude had Peter’s words before him and blew them up into the more particularised form of allusion in his epistle. A few other details of this sort (e.g. vv. 12,13 compared with 2 Pet. 2:17), none of them separately very impressive, likewise throw a certain amount of doubt on the idea that Jude deliberately makes use of 2 Peter. It is for sketchy reasons of this sort that the suggestion has been put forward that niether Jude nor 2 Peter is the original, but that both were consciously borrowing from some other apostolic writing already in existence. This is not utterly out of the question, but until there is more concrete evidence to go on, the idea can hardly be regarded as more than speculation.

Korah was one of those saved out of Egypt. He was prominent in the worship of the Lord, but then turned in rebellion against the appointed leaders of the people. So, since he rejected an appeal for repentance, he died by dramatic divine judgement. These men who Jude apostrophised likewise knew the saving faith of Christ and had come to prominence in the ecclesias. However, their disparagement of apostles and other properly-constituted authority could mean only one thing — the judgement of God soon, in the horrors of A.D. 70, and hereafter at the coming of the Lord.

Jude now leaves off his strong Biblical denunciations, but only in order to flay the unworthy with equally strong metaphors — some of the most vigorous to be found in the pages of the Bible. An archangel may say: “The Lord rebuke thee”, but Jude takes upon himself to censure violently these corrupters of the early ecclesias. So either he understood the word “rebuke” in the sense of ‘bring judgement’, or else he knew that the Lord was guiding his pen in these present words of rebuke and repudiation.

Five powerful illustrations expose the character and destiny of these men whose deliberate intention ws to pervert or wreck the ecclesias from within.

“These are spots (R.V.: hidden rocks) in your Love Feasts, when they feast with you.” Here, and in 2 Peter 2:13, are the plainest New Testament allusions to the early church’s practice of associating the memorial Bread and Wine with a meal of fellowship, after the pattern of the Last Supper in which a normal mean was followed by the Lord’s appointed sacrament. Actually there are many allusions to the Love Feast throughout the New Testament, but they are mostly disguised by the fact that the Greek word for the Love Feast, agape, is identical with that which describes the abstract virtue of Christian love. As a result, in not a few of the places where the common version reads “love”, it ought rather to read “Love Feast”, thus greatly illuminating some important passages (“Studies in the Gospels”, Chapter 192, H.A.W.).

Evidently those whom Jude denounces were at fault in the same way that certain brethren at Corinth are shown to be (1 Cor. 11:20-22,34). They were turning a holy meal, which should have been characterised by reverence and sanctified talk, into a gross self-indulgence dishonouring to the Lord who founded the function. “They feed (literally: shepherd) themselves without fear (of God).” There seems to be allusion here to a highly appropriate prophecy of Ezekiel’s: “The shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock” (34:8; cp. Isa. 56:11,12). Jude obviously intended ;most of this chapter in Ezekiel to be recalled.

There is a problem here regarding the parallel text in Peter. There the reading is certainly “spots” (Greek: spiloi). But here (in Jude) the manuscript evidence is strongly in favour of the R.V. reading: “hidden rocks” (Greek: spilades), a feminine noun linked with a masculine article or pronoun in such a say as to suggest: ‘These are they (who are) hidden rocks at your Love Fests’. But is not this term, “hidden rocks”, hopelessly out of place in such a context? “Spots” is a reading calling for no apology or explanation, but “hidden rocks” does.

There seem to be two possibilities here. Either this rare word spilades carried more than one meaning, “spots” also being one of them (there is some fourth century evidence to this effect), or else Jude, caught by the similarity between the two words, deliberately swung to this reading in order to add to Peter’s disapproving “spots and blemishes” the sinister picture of a smooth tranquil sea suddenly made to boil and foam by an ugly slab of rock just breaking the surface (1 Tim. 1:10). (If this is correct, then spilades was introduced by Jude to prepare the way for a similar and even more graphic idea in v. 13.)

The next figure takes the readers away from the sea to the sky: “clouds without water, carried about of winds”. Here again is another unexpected modification of Peter’s strong language. He wrote: “wells (springs) without water, and mists driven by a storm”. Jude seems to have detached the Greek word meaning “without water” and to have attached it just as meaningfully to the words that follow, but even then he seems to paraphrase rather than quote. Yet in actual fact the whole point of these modifications of Peter’s text is in order to quote from Proverbs 25:14: “As clouds and wind without rain, so is he that boasteth hmself in a figt of falsehood (i.e. a false claim to a gift of the Holy Spirit).”

There can be no doubt that this is the very point Jude was eager to make, for here in the midst of the brethren were deceivers who did falsely boast of having the Holy Spirit’s power and inspiration. But, Jude implies, instead of spirit there is wind (in Hebrew ruach is both wind and spirit): and his word for “carried about” is deliberately contrived to recall (with a difference) the word which Peter uses for the compelling power of divine inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21,18,17; 1 Pet. 1:13; 2 John 10; Heb. 1:3; 6:1; Acts 2:2). Thus Jude neatly throws cold water on specious claims of men who are “without water” (what a contrast with Psa. 72:6).

Next, another vivid Biblical allusion: “autumn fruit trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots”. There is no parallel to this in Peter, unless it be these words: “these things (God’s exceeding great and precious promises) make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 2:8,4). Here there is surely allusion to two of the fig-tree passages in our Lord’s ministry. He came to such a tree in the spring-time seeking fruit and finding none. There were not even the small immature figs which a normal fig-tree would have carried at that time of the year (S.S. 2:11-13). So he cursed it, and that day it died — qn eloquent acted parable of God’s judgement on fruit-less Israel.

But these men whom Jude exposes are described as trees without fruit in autumn. This change of season in the figure is very fitting. The Lord’s ministry had been a fruitless spring-time. Since there there had been the full summer of the gospel of the Holy Spirit, and now in what should have been a time of rich fruit-bearing these enemies of the Faith were spiritually unfruitful. They were “twice dead”, in the sense that they had died to the world in their baptism into Christ, but although born anew already they had passed into spiritual death.

Therefore retribution, as Jesus had said: “If ye (apostles) had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye would say to this sycamine (fig) tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you” (Luke 17:6). “This fig tree” was fruitless Jewry, the greatest obstacle in the first century to the apostles’ preaching; and though their faith the fig-tree nation was plucked up by the roots and cast into the Gentile sea, so that through long centuries it has drifted hither and yon, swept along by currents and storms, and has at last in these Last Days fetched up again on the shores of the Holy Land.

What an appropriate figure of speech to employ when the last three and a half years of Israel’s political history had already begun! And what a warning to and concerning men who were more devoted to Moses than to Christ!

Not inappropriately Jude’s next illustration also concerns the ocean.

These adversaries of the Truth are “raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame”. Here the word “shame” is actually plural — a Hebraism, maybe, to suggest “great shame”. It would seem that without quotation Jude was alluding to familiar words in Isaiah: “The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.” It is an ebbing tide which leaves scum and froth and filth lining the beach. So it may be that by this figure, as well as the preceding one, and also the next one, Jude was hinting that with the Jewish war impending, Judaism was a retreating tide, in which these “raging waves” (this word normally describes wild animals) would leave “the sand of the seashore”, the seed of Abraham (Gen. 22:17), foul and unattractive.

Last, and most damning of all: “Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever”. There is an interesting ambiguity here. Shooting star (i.e. meteor), or comet? The former flashes suddenly through the night sky, making a brilliant blaze for a split second and then disappearing for ever in a darkness which now seems all the more intense. The latter swings slowly and steadily into sight, an impressive spectacle in the heavens for maybe weeks or months, and then fades away into nothingness as its immensely long orbit takes it away into the depths of outer darkness.

It is probably the comet allusion which Jude now intends, for not long before the final troubles at Jerusalme, Halley’s comet made an ominous appearance. “There was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city’ (Josephus B.J. 6.5.3). A portent, surely! Those familiar with Jude’s epistle would not be slow to match up the figure with its fulfilment.

Men of the character Jude is repudiating here will assuredly come under judgement. Several of his phrases have already said or strongly implied this. But now a specially telling example:

“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgement upon all, and to convict all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

It used to be maintained that these words must be a quotation from the Enoch of Genesis 5, which had survived through three millenia as part of an oral tradition.

But this will not do. There is a ‘Book of Enoch’, extant today, which was in circulation amongst Jews and Christians in the first century, and the words of v. 14 are an explicit quotation from it, whilst v. 15 is an effective paraphrase of, and a big improvement on, the dieas of judgement which come elsewhere in ‘Enoch’.

That this work was not written by the original Enoch is evident at first reading. So the fact has to be faced that here is Jude plainly and unashamedly bolstering up his argument with a quotation from a book with not divine authority, and which is a palpable forgery after the manner that became fashionable in that epoch. Even if it is urged (rightly) that the words in question are actually a distorted quotation from Deuteronomy 33:2, pirated by ‘Enoch’, the problem still remains that Jude explicitly attributes them to “Enoch, the seventh from Adam”.

There is an easy solution to this problem in one word which has been mistranslated and generally overlooked: autois, “of these”. But this dative case should read “to these” (R.V.), “for these”. (Another possibility, “by these”, is clearly inadmissible here.)

This word makes all the difference. Jude is now seen to be asserting rather sardonically: These bad men have a ‘scripture’ which they esteem highly; then why do they not take notice of what it says of them? This is what is sometimes called the argument ad hominem — coming down to the level of your opponent, accepting for the moment his assumptions without necessarily agreeing to them, and then proceeding to show that the ‘authority’ he quotes disallows the truth of his conclusion. Similarly, in the parable about the rich man in hell, Jesus took over the main ideas of the Pharisees about the hereafter, but he was careful to make plain how absurd he judged them to be (“Studies in the Gospels”, Chapter 138, H.A.W.). So also Jude here, by the way he says: “to these Enoch prophesied….”

In this case the sentiment of verse 14 is thoroughly Biblical, even though the original words in Deuteronomy 33 appear in a very different context.

Jude’s “to these” becomes the more effective when it is seen as an element in a rather scornful repetitious tactic: verses 8 (R.V.), 10, 12, 14, 16. (What a contrast with Peter’s use of “these” — 2 Pet. 1:4,8,9,10,12 — with reference to “exceeding great and precious promises”!)

Even the mention of Enoch as “the seventh from Adam” (claimed as the author of this spurious prophecy) seems to have special point, for he was probably removed out of persecution to a divine sanctuary (Heb. 11:5, s.w. 7:12), and this deliverance took place only a short while before the first thousand years of human history had expired. If these men Jude denounced took this apocryphal writing so seriously, couldn’t they get the message, and apply it to Christian flight from Jerusalem as portending a titanic judgement on the city?

Well, the next verse sets it out plainly enough for them. The fourfold repetition of “all” and “ungodly” could hardly be more forceful in its effect. But the Greek text does actually put even more point to it by the way in which “Ungodly sinners!” is saved up to the end of the sentence as a final explosive reprobation.

These men are “murmurers, complainers”, who speak “hard words” against the Lord by speaking against those whom He has appointed to His work. Here are echoes once again of Israel in the wilderness (Exod. 14:11; 15:24; 16:2; 17:2,3; Num. 11:1-6; 14:2,8,11; 16:41; 20:2; 21:5; Deut. 1:27, LXX; 9:7; Josh. 9:18; Psa. 106:25; 1 Cor. 10:10; John 6:41,43)., and especially of Korah’s rebellion (Num. 16:11). That graphic Greek word “complainers” describes men who are not satisfied with their own lot. And since “their mouth” (their spokesman) speaks “great swelling words” (used about Daniel in Dan. 5:12, LXX), after the manner of the Judaistic “Satan” who was such a thorn in the flesh to Paul (2 Cor. 11:13-15,22ff), this further allusion to Korah (following on v. 11) comes in very appropriately. As also does the final phrase: “having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage” — those who deliberately sought to work mischief in the early ecclesias found that it paid to parade the high qualification of rabbinic education and scholarship which their leaders had.

Paul’s counter to such was a warning against “fables and endless genealogies….profane and old wives’ fables….profane and vain babblings….Jewish fables and commandments of men” (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:16; Tit. 1:14). But Jude had other methods, as v. 14 clearly shows: even their Jewish fables denounce them.

It is useful at this point to pause and note the shape of the main part of Jude’s epistle.

Vv. 17-19 recapitulate the development of the longer main section, vv. 5-16:

In the section now under review there is also an impressive ABAB structure:

But Jude’s warning directs his readers to “the words spoken before by the apostles”. The close coincidence of vv. 17,18 with the familiar passage in 2 Peter 3:2,3 is not to be missed, and calls for explanation. The fact that Jude refers to an apostolic warning makes it near certain that he is referring to 2 Peter, and that he is in fact quoting from that epistle almost verbatim (but it is interesting to note how he slips in is own favourite objurgation: “ungodly”).

The way in which reference is made to the apostles has been made the ground for a confident conclusion that Jude himself was not an apostle. But this is very unsure. If a political spokesman were to announce: ‘The Government has decided….’, would that necessarily, or at all, imply that the speaker was not a member of the Cabinet?

Actually the same precarious argument can be used against 2 Peter: “The commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles” (3:2, R.V.). Certain modernists would be happy enough to infer here that therefore 2 Peter was not written by an apostle but by a clumsy forger who forgot himself for the moment. But those who believe that 2 Peter was written by Peter will appreciate the force of the argument.

In any case, Jude’s continuation: “how that they told you….” is fairly strong as an indication that Jude was himself an apostle, for otherwise would he not have written: “how that they told us….”?

But if Jude was referring to 2 Peter 3, why “the words (rhemata, spoken words) spoken before by the apostles”? Why not “words written” in 2 Peter?

It may be that Jude knew Peter to be in the habit of using an amanuensis. It is probable (1 Pet. 5:12) that Silvanus was the apostle’s secretary for the first epistle. In that case “spoken” would not be altogether inappropriate.

Another possibility is that these to whom Jude wrote had had Peter personally among them, speaking the very warnings which he later repeated in his letter.

Yet another interesting enquiry is why Jude should say “apostles”. If he were referring to Peter explicitly, would not a singular noun be more appropriate here?

But Peter was not the only one to have published warnings of this nature.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly (i.e. through Paul or one of his colleagues) that in the latter times (Jude: the last time; Peter: the last days) some shall depart from the faith….” (1 Tim. 4:1 — the first seven verses here merit careful comparison with Jude).

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come….” (2 Tim. 3:1, and again the first seven verses should be compared with Jude).

“After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29).

So evidently Jude was aware of the plain warnings spoken by both Peter and Paul.

Peter had said that making fun of belief in the Second Coming would be one of the signs of the last days. In effect, Jude now says the same; but then he startles his readers by adding: “These be they….”. In other words, Peter was right and his prophecy is being fulfilled at this present time. Then is the reader to conclude that “the last days” have come and gone, or that they have lasted through 1900 years from Jude to the present day?

Neither of these conclusions will hold water. There is not much point in warning people that they live in “the last time” if that time stretches out for two millenia! And the attempt by some to limit the words to ‘the last days of Judah’s commonwealth’ is woefully inadequate for at least two plain reasons:

1. The Lord did not come in A.D. 70. There is no Scripture that says he did. But there are Scriptures that say that he didn’t, e.g. “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool” (Psa. 110:1).
2. 2 Peter 3 links “the last days” quite unmistakably with the personal return of the Lord and the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy about “new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness” (v. 13). The only explanation of this problem that has solid Biblical backing and that has not been exposed as delusive is the idea of divine deferment, as expounded in the Appendix to “Revelation”, by H.A.W.

Jude puts his finger on a vital spot when he declares that men who scoff at the idea of the Second Coming do so that they might “walk after their own ungodly lusts”. What fools these mortals be! Today, as in Jude’s time, they think that by abolishing belief in the Second Coming they are also abolishing the Second Coming!

Jude has two more quickfire censures of these enemies of the Truth:

1. They “separate themselves” (A.V.). There is a Greek word horizo which normally means “mark off, determine”, just as the horizon marks off the limits of visibility. With prefix dia- forming diorizo, it describes the “separate place” in Ezekiel’s temple (41:12) and the Holy of Holies (Exod. 26:33). It also applies to Israel as a separate people (Lev. 20:26). With another prefix apo- it is used (in a bad sense) for withdrawing fellowship. But in this place, Jude uses the word with both prefixes: apodiorizo — it is the only occurrence in the New Testament or LXX. Clearly it is meant to be specially emphatic. But the form of the verb does not imply “themselves” (as in the A.V.), but rather the idea that “they cut off others”. Actually, taken either way, the word implies an act of separation by those who deem themselves superior in some way or another. Jude would assuredly find the counterpart to these people alive today. In differing degrees there are plenty calling themselves the Lord’s people who revel in this practice.
2. They are “sensual (psuchikos), not having the Spirit”. These two phrases clearly go together, for they are antitheses. Psuche, soul, is not infrequently used in the New Testament to describe the natural man and his unworthy inclinations: “The fruits that thy soul lusted after” (Rev. 18:14), “Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years” (Luke 12:19). And in some places there is careful antithesis between what pertains to the natural man and what characterizes the new man in Christ. “The natural (psuchikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:14). The Word of God “divides asunder between soul and Spirit” (Heb. 4:12). Here, then, declares Jude, are men who are in the ecclesia but are not truly in Christ. It is a searing thing to have to say. And of course he would have to say the same thing today — about those who “make separations”!

Warning and denunciation are now concluded. For a brief but valuable space Jude moves over to positive exhortation regarding the welfare of the brethren — elders and rank-and-file alike. But it does seem fairly evident that these verses are addressed primarily to the leaders of the ecclesia(s) receiving this epistle. As will be seen, several of the phrases suggest this idea. And it is appropriate that Jude should end his letter with special words of advice to the elders.

“But ye, beloved” — here is pointed contrast with the preceding verse denouncing the unspiritual. The first and plainest recommendations bids them hold firmly to the basic tenets of the Statement of Faith. Your creed is vitally important: “Build up yourselves in your most holy faith.” But the implication here is a serious one. The foundations of Christian belief are only foundations. The Lord intends them to be built on. The follower of Christ who is content to spend the rest of his days with the ABC of his Faithl, without forging ahead in his spiritual appreciation of the higher levels of the gospel, or in his efforts to fashion himself into a finer stone for the Lord’s spiritual House, is not really a followers, for he is standing still.

One plain sign of growth in Christ is one’s attitude to prayer. But what is this “praying in the Holy Spirit” which Jude urges? Here is a phenomenon of life in the early church calling for careful attention:

• “Praying with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints” (Eph. 6:18).
• “Watch unto prayer” (1 Pet. 4:7).
• “Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks….Quench not the Spirit” (1 Thes. 5:17-19).
• “The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groaning which cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26).
• “Take heed therefore….to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made your overseers, to feed the church of God….therefore watch and remember” (Acts 20:28,31).
• “….through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19).
• “Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving” (Col. 4:2).
• “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls….that they may do it with joy, and not with groaning” (Heb. 13:17).

The picture that emerges from this catena of passages (and there are others similar in character but perhaps not so pointed) is one of special prayer meetings held by the elders of the ecclesias on behalf of members of their community in need of spiritual support. But the problem so often is: What to pray for? All too often human wisdom is not equal to the occasion.But in first century days the Holy Spirit was. Here was a divine gift reinforcing and directing the prayers of the brethren, making good the inadequacy they were only too conscious of. Whether there is any counterpart to this situation today is problematical, but certainly in Jude’s time that uncertainty need not arise. The brethren were not to neglect their spiritual aids and duties: they must “pray in the Holy Spirit”.

The third item in this luminous triad lacks the precision of the others — or so it seems at first reading: “Keep yourselves in the love of God”. Here is one of the many examples in the New Testament where there is confusion between agape, the virtue of Christian love, and agape, the Love Feast (see on vv. 1-4). Here the meaning is: “Keep yourselves by means of the divine Agape”. The Greek verb is most commonly used of keeping commandments; and the preposition frequently has this instrumental meaning: “by means of”. And here theos without the article has a weaker meaning that with it, e.g. “The Word was with God (article) and the Word was divine (no article)” (John 1:1).

The next phrase chimes in with this reading: “Looking for (‘welcoming’ would be better) the mercy (forgiveness) of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life”. The Breaking of Bread service brings present assurance of sins forgiven (Matt. 26:28), and holds out a blessed prospect of future blessedness — “I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”.

Thus, in this passage there is, first, emphasis on the Creed of the Christian — “I believe”; next, the duty of elders in leading prayer and worship; and then the supreme importance of the Breaking of Bread service. In fact there are here two triads in one:

Next follows another triad, all three items of which are concerning those with insecure faith. The understanding of some of the phrases is much complicated by ambiguity regarding some of the Greek words and by a variety of manuscript readings, all of them fairly well attested. So, since it is hardly possible here to discuss the various nuances of translation and the rather technical problems of textual criticism, it is proposed to cut a collection of Gordian knots by outlining what is the most likely reading and coherent meaning. The note in the R.V. margin is a splendid understatement: ‘The Greek text in this passage is somewhat uncertain.’

“Some (you must) reprove, who argue the point with you.” In other words, when there is contumacy and self-assertiveness, let such pride and wilfulness be rebuked (for the individual’s own sake) and exposed (for the warning and benefit of the rest).

“And others (you must) save with fear, snatching them out of the fire.” Here is another allusion to the Zechariah passage about Joshua the high priest: “Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” (3:2). The figure of speech is appropriate enough to the case of Joshua in filthy garments, for a firebrand is scorched and damaged but is saved without being burned up. So the right attitude towards those soiled by worldly and defiling associations is to use swift and energetic effort to save them before they are past saving. It is the “Operation Lost Sheep” which Jesus himself counselled in an eloquent parable to which so often emotional assent is given but with little practical action.

“And on some (you must) have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” It is right to shrink from the very idea of “filthy garments”, and when others are in disreputable spiritual attire, censure of such is natural enough. But how much better it is if there be an understanding forgiveness. Again the allusion is to Zechariah 3. Joshua doubtless cringed to think that his high priestly garments, “for glory and for beauty”, were defiled and utterly unworthy of his high office, but the mercy of the Lord vindicated him. The allusion goes beyond this post-captivity situation back to Moses’ Law of Leprosy. If rigorous washing removed the sign of the plague, then all was well — the garment (here the Greek chiton is derived directly from the Hebrew ch’toneth, the coat worn by a priest) could be worn again. But otherwise it must be destroyed by fire. Which things are a parable for the reclaiming of those whose life in Christ has suffered defilement.

The apostle Paul has two wonderful doxologies, glorifying God for what He has done for His redeemed in Christ:

“Now unto him that is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ….” (Rom. 16:25).

“Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that ask or think….” (Eph. 3:29).

But Jude surpasses even these transcendant expressions of faith:

“Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory….”

If Jude had written nothing but these words the New Testament would have been much the poorer with them.

There is a contrast here in the words for “keep”. In v. 21, “keep yourselves by means of the divine Love Feast” indicates a contribution which the believer can make towards his own spiritual well-being, by the simple act of presenting himself, though faulty, before the presence of the Glory of the Lord. But, once there, he is caused to stand faultless, guarded from falling away.

Prophets of the Lord, splendid men that they were, prostrated themselves before the heavenly Glory, overpowered by a sense of their own unworthiness. Yet Jesus had bidden his men “watch and pray always that ye may be accounted worthy to stand before the Son of Man” (Luke 21:36).

Such faultless standing may be the disciple’s status even now (yet what a contrast with the searing language of vv. 12,13), because he has a covering sacrifice of “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). So Peter might well exhort to diligence “that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless” (2 Pet. 3:14). The Lord’s Righteous Servant justifies many, bearing their iniquities (Isa. 53:11), but only if they give diligence are they guarded from falling away, and so presented “blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Thes. 3:13). Yet, also, some are so set on achieving in the Last Day a credit balance of good marks over against bad marks that they fail to realise that, both then and now, there are only two conditions, either faultless or fallen.

The language of this amazing passage is that of the Day of Atonement. “Before the presence of his glory” pictures the High Priest in the Holy of Holies. “Faultless, without blemish” describes the sacrifice offered and accepted, hence the mention of the Glory. But whereas Israel, called to repeat this ceremony of atonement year after year, heard the commandment: “Ye shall afflict your souls” (Lev. 16:29,31), that is, go fasting all the day, this New Israel partakes of Bread and Wine “with exceeding joy”, thankful for a sacrifice without blemish offered once for all.

For all this, praise is given to “God our Saviour”, but only “through Jesus Christ our Lord”. The highest “glory, majesty, dominion and power” comes to Him through His glorious Son. Very strangely, the A.V. omits this most necessary clause about Christ (it has very strong manuscript support), and also “before all time” (literally: before the age) to link with “now and ever” — this is the Covenant Name Jehovah, “which is, and was, and is to come” (Rev. 1:8). Could Jude end on a better note?

An initial difficulty

The opening words of the Book of Judges present their reader with an awkward problem: “And it came to pass after the death of Joshua…” But the death and burial of that great leader are described in 2:8,9; and the opening section of the book up to that point includes hardly anything which is not to be found recorded already in the second half of the Book of Joshua. Every city whose capture is catalogued in Judges 1 is already recorded (in Joshua) as taken whilst that leader was alive. And indeed it would be hard to believe that the many incursions, by which the various tribes appropriated their inheritances, took place only after the life and rule of Joshua had come to an end — and he lived many years (40?) after the crossing of Jordan, dying at the age of 110.

One suggestion for coping with the difficulty is that through some scribal error the name of Joshua has replaced that of Moses in this opening phrase. Read: “And it came to pass after the death of Moses….” — and no problem remains, except that of evidence; for there is not a vestige of manuscript support for such a reading. However, that does not rule it out as completely impossible. The Massoretes were not as infallible as they are often made out to be.

A Remarkable Feature

There are other considerations of some interest which link this “preface” with the last five chapters of Judges. It is to be noted that:

1. 1:1-2:10 and ch. 17-21 are similar in their frequent allusions to Judah and Jerusalem, and to the twelve tribes acting together; these receive hardly any mention at all in the main part of the book.
2. these two sections have no references at all to judges ruling the people.
3. there are quite a number of key phrases in common.
4. inquiry of the Lord (by Urim and Thummim) comes in both, and not elsewhere in the book.
5. Judah has precedence in the fighting: 1:2; 20:18.

It does not seem possible to offer an explanation as to why there should be these dislocations (regarding ch. 1 and ch. 17-21). The problem exists also in other prophetic and historical books (e.g., the text of Jeremiah; the last few chapters of 2 Samuel), but no one seems to know why.

With the main concerted opposition now broken, a directive was sought from the Lord as to which tribe should make the first move to appropriate its inheritance. Here was a people still with vivid memories of the recent disaster when, following their own wisdom, they attempted an easy-going capture of Ai. The Hebrew expression for “asked the Lord” is unusual, and occurs elsewhere only in the later chapters (18:5; 20:18,23).

Judah and Simeon

The answer by Urim and Thummim (Num. 27:21) selected Judah to make the first attack. This was in harmony with Jacob’s prophecy: “Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies” (Gen. 49:8). Judah promptly sought the co-operation of Simeon. This, too, was right, for these two were sons of Leah and the inheritance of Simeon was already designated, not as a separate distinct territory, but as a number of towns dotted about within the southern part of the portion assigned to Judah (Josh. 19:1-9). This too was in accordance with Jacob’s pronouncement concerning the tribe: “I will divide them (Simeon and Levi) in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel” (Gen. 49:7). These Simeonites, although a depleted tribe, were a fierce lot. A passage at the end of 1 Chronicles 4 shows that their character and reputation lasted through the centuries.

Led by Caleb (Josh. 14:6), who although of Gentile origin was the prince of Judah, these tribal brothers went up from Gilgal and began a long series of military successes, against Canaanites (Gen. 9:25) in the lowlands, against the Perizzites living in the unwalled villages (so the name implies), and against the handful of strong cities dotted through the area.

An early outstanding victory was against Bezek, halfway between Jerusalem and the coast. The king of this place, Adoni-bezek, lorded it over the sheiks of no less than seventy villages and towns in that area. These, their subject status cruelly emphasized by the cutting off of thumbs and big toes (so that they could neither fight nor flee), gleaned their food under the feasting table of this “Lord of Lightning”. At least, that was the way he boasted about his power, but perhaps it was only a purple way of describing figuratively the strength of his tyranny. The men of Israel now chased him out of his stronghold, hunted him across the countryside, captured him, and meted out to him the identical treatment he had proudly decreed for others. Then they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died, perhaps as a result of wounds received in the fighting.

Adoni-Bezek and Christ

In itself it is a typical picture of a hard pitiless era. Yet how it takes on greater fulness of meaning when illuminated by one phrase from the lips of Jesus. He had sent out an augmented team of preachers in twos, seventy of them, and had given them not only a matchless message, but also powers to match the message. In due time they returned bubbling over with excitement at the success that had attended both their preaching and their working of miracles: “Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name!” The Lord’s immediate response was: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” What was the connection?

Adoni-bezek, the Lord of Lightning, with 70 princes in thrall, was an apt figure of human sin and ignorance holding dominion over all the nations of the world (70 of them are listed in Genesis 10; 12 wells and 70 palm trees at Rephidim; 70 bullocks offered in sacrifice at the Feast of Tabernacles). As Jesus sent out his 70 in twos, so also a typical two, Judah and Simeon, had laboured together to break the power of the tyrant. They routed him in the place of his strength, hunted him down, and he came to his end at Jerusalem! Then is it absurd to think of Jesus seeing his 70 engaged in a corresponding campaign over a more tyrannous Lord of Lightning?

Jerusalem

Jerusalem also was captured, burnt, and left desolate by the men of Judah. The appointed boundary between Judah and Benjamin passed through Jerusalem. The former did not seem greatly anxious to make the most of their capture (a strange irony, this, in view of the city’s later history!), so the Benjamites took it over, but in such inadequate strength that they could not hold it against the original Jebusites who gradually came back to their old homes. Eventually at some time during the period of the judges, they were able to expel the Israelites and re-assert complete control there until the days of David (1:8,21; 19:10-12; 2 Sam. 5:6).

Caleb’s inheritance

Next, Caleb turned towards the locality which had been designated by Moses as his inheritance (Deut. 1:36). Kirjath-Arba, which became Hebron, was inhabited by the sons of Anak, survivors of a race of giant stature. But Caleb, vigorous as ever (Josh. 14:11), and with the same strong faith and undaunted spirit which had held firmly on to God’s promises in the day of discouragement (Num. 13,14), was confident that God would prosper his enterprise. And He did.

Half-way between Hebron and Beersheba was a place called Kiriath-sepher. Evidently too pre-occupied in other directions to make this a personal target, Caleb called for volunteers against it, offering his own daughter in marriage as an added incentive. Othniel, his own nephew, responded to the challenge. At a blow he won a home and a wife. Achsah, with something of the go-getting spirit of her father, goaded Othniel to ask him to add a suitable area of cultivable land nearby. When her new husband was loth to press this further request, she did so herself, and was granted the upper and nether springs (fourteen of them, in two main groups) in the fertile hollow towards Hebron which would normally have been included in the territory of that place.

It seems very likely that the two unexpected verses about Jabez, cropping up in the middle of the Chronicles genealogies (1 Chron. 4:9,10), refer to Othniel. For the genealogy there is that of Judah, Othniel’s tribe, and Jabez calls on “the God of Israel” precisely as Caleb also does (Josh. 14:14), a thing to be expected since they were both of Gentile origin, being Kenizzites (v. 13 here). The phrase: “more honourable than his brethren”, may allude to the fact that other members of the family did not share his union with Israel; or it commemorates his fine work as saviour and judge of Israel (3:8-11). His request: “Oh that thou wouldest….enlarge my border” is matched in Judges by Othniel’s tactful incitement of his wife to ask for springs of water as an addition to her dowry — what Jabez very appropriately calls “a blessing” (1 Chron. 4:10 Jud. 1:15). And “God granted him that which he requested.” Evidently whilst Achsah was asking her father, Othniel was asking his Father.

This Kirjath-sepher (Book Town!), Othniel’s inheritance, was also known as Kiriath-sannah (Josh. 15:49), which might possibly mean Instruction Town. Its name became Debir, which is basically the Hebrew for Word. Thus all three names suggest literary pursuits. So it is not unreasonable to see here the existence of a primitive university. There is a hint of a possibility that in time it was taken over by the men of Simeon. This would perhaps account for the rabbinic tradition that it was from Simeon that the scribes of Israel originated.

Yet further south, beyond Beersheba, Hormah was devastated, and the Kenites (the Midianite tribe of smiths to which Moses’ father-in-law had belonged) moved in and appropriated the area for the Bedouin life they normally followed. Many years later they had to be warned off by Saul at the time of his campaign against the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:6).

Stronger opposition

Success dried up when Judah turned towards the sea. Here they encountered the cities of the Philistines who, only recently, had come across the sea from Crete and settled on the coastal plain. They had chariots of iron, possibly supplied or bought from Egypt (LXX: for Rechab — Egypt — prevented them). This gave them a telling advantage in pitched battles, and the faith of the Israelites in the prospering providence of God wilted under the strain. The Judges record (1:18) reads as though the Philistine cities were captured, but the next verse and the Septuagint version encourage the belief that a “not” has somehow dropped out of the text here. In the LXX it is there six times over. In fact, not until the time of David and Solomon was Israelite supremacy asserted over that region. Thus Dan also had to go without part of his inheritance. It was this deprivation which led to the Danite migration to the north not long afterwards (see Jud. 18).

Another collaboration in conquest was between Ephraim and Manasseh — the house of Joseph. Their portions fell in the central area, side by side. First, they blockaded Bethel-Luz, a border city of Ephraim and Benjamin (Josh. 18:13,22). It may be inferred that Luz was so-called by its Hittite inhabitants, whereas Bethel was the name given by Jacob and his descendants to the sanctuary of Jehovah just on the outskirts of the city (Gen. 13:3; 28:11,19,22; 35:7,8).

From a native of the place who was captured they learned, by trading the man’s life for the secret, how best to force the defences. At Beth-haccerem archaeologists found a one-man escape hole neatly hidden away (cp. 2 Kgs. 25:4). Presumably something of this kind was made known to the men of Israel, so that they were able to take Luz from within. In accordance with Deut. 20:16,17 the populace were destroyed; but since the man had been promised his life, the condition was insisted on that he cleared out, back to the Hittite land in the far north.

This proved to be Ephraim’s only big success. Was it lack of faith, resolution or armaments which led to such modest progress? Traditional fortresses still held by the Egyptians, like Beth-sh’an, Taanach, and Megiddo, stood out comfortably against the lightly-armed Israelites.

Israel and the Canaanites

In due time the tribes grew stronger. Yet even when their power preponderated they tolerated the Canaanites among them and did not sweep the Land clean of their evil religions and practices as Moses had insisted (Deut. 20:10-18). This happened with practically all the twelve tribes, but especially so in the north. The sequence of phrases is interesting:

This rather spineless disposition to tolerate the continuation of evil pagan religions in their midst, brought on Israel a sweeping censure: “the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim”, and there he reminded the assembly of all the people of their duty to the Lord who had so faithfully fulfilled His covenant to give them the Land. Then let them fulfil their side of the covenant, or they would soon find themselves paying with bitter experience for their indifference and flagging loyalty.

A rebuking angel

Who was this “angel” of the Lord? Was it the angel of the covenant who had given guidance to Joshua (e.g., Josh. 5:13)? Was it Eleazer or Phinehas the high priest (see Mal. 2:7)? Was it some unnamed prophet (cp. Mal. 3:6)? Or was it Joshua himself, and this remonstration a condensed version of the exhortation he addressed to the elders of Israel at Shechem (Joshua 24)? In favour of this idea is the fact that Judges 1 summarises much in the second half of the Book of Joshua, and then 2:1-10 would correspond with the end of that book. There is a good deal of similarity between the final exhortations of Joshua (in ch. 23,24) and this warning in Judges, so that the latter may readily be taken as a condensed version of the former. There is also the continuation in v. 6: “And when Joshua had sent the people away….”, as though defining here who the “messenger” was (cp. Josh. 1:28).

But in that case, why “the angel of the Lord”? Surely because Joshua was deliberately echoing the warning given to Israel by Moses about the Angel of the Covenant in their midst. This is readily perceptible in Exodus 23:20,23,24,32.

Then, where was Bochim, the place of Israel’s weeping, for Bochim was an eponym added because of this special occasion?

One would naturally assume Shiloh, the place of the sanctuary of the Lord (cp. Josh. 18:1). LXX adds “Bethel”, but this would not necessarily rule out Shiloh, for it was in truth the House of God. But on other occasions not long after this Bethel was a centre of assembly, sacrifice, and repentant weeping (20:18; 21:2,4 — Shiloh being ruled out, here, as being too remote). Also, there at Bethel was the altar of Abraham and Jacob, and close by it “the oak of weeping” (Gen. 12:3,4; 28:11,22; 35:7,8).

This section concludes with a repetition of the account given in Joshua of the death and burial of the great leader, who shares with Moses, David and the Messiah the high title of “Servant of the Lord”. They buried him in his own inheritance in Timnath-serah, within sight of the location of his mighty victory on the day when the sun stood still. In Judges 2:9 the name is given as Timnath-heres (the sun!). Is this just a textual corruption, or was the name changed to remind the people of that day of outstanding triumph?

Notes

Judges 1

1.	The real beginning of Judges is in 2:8.
	Asked the Lord; cp. 20:18. From Josh. 7:16-18 and into 1,2 Samuel allusions to this means of divine guidance are fairly frequent. See “Samuel, Saul, and David”, Appendix 1.
	Go up, from Gilgal (in the early days of Joshua)? or just an idiom for assault? The order of the tribes in this ch. is roughly the same as in Josh. 15-19, but with Issachar omitted (why?).
2.	Judah first, because of Gen. 49:8?
	Delivered the land into his hand. Either (a) Judah’s success to be a token of the rest; or (b) “I have begun to deliver….”.
3.	Judah, Simeon. God often sends His men in twos: Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1; Acts 8:14.
5.	Adoni-bezek should probably be Adoni-barak, Lord of lightning. In Hebrew BZK is readily confused with BRK, as in Ezek. 1:13,14, and here especially because of the town Bezek in the same verse.
7.	So God hath requited me. Philistines also acknowledged the power of the God of Israel: 1 Sam. 4:7,8; 6:5.
8.	Set on fire; s.w. 20:48.
9.	Valley: Shephelah, the coastal plain.
10.	Canaanites. Here, Anakim: Josh. 15:13-19; 11:21, a conquest certainly in Joshua’s lifetime. Anak means “chain”, a symbol of authority? 8:26.
	Ahiman means “brother of the god of good luck”; cp. Isa. 65:11 RV. Contrast the tone of Num. 13:22,33.
12.	Achsah probably means “the girl with bangles”.
13.	Othniel, forefather of one of David’s captains; 1 Chron. 27:15.
14.	What wilt thou? Caleb didn’t wait for her to ask.
16.	Arad, the Eder of Josh. 15:21 (an easy error there).
	The people. Amalek? 1 Sam. 15:6.
17.	Zephath. This in accordance with Num. 21:3. Hormah means “given to divine destruction”. Cp. Josh. 19:4; 15:4 — hence Simeon here.
18.	Accepting the LXX negatives, v. 17,18 give an ABAB formation. Note Deut. 7:22; 11:24.
19.	Chariots of iron. The Iron Age was just coming in. In this Egypt would be ahead of the Canaanite nations. Later: 1 Sam. 13:19,20.
21.	Jebus means “dry”. So also does Zion.
28.	Put the Canaanites to tribute. A policy put in force once again in the time of Solomon: 1 Kgs. 4:12; 9:20-22. These surviving Canaanite settlements became running sores of moral infection: 2:12.
29.	Gezer kept its independence until taken by an Egyptian army and given to Solomon as a wedding present! 1 Kgs. 9:16.
30.	Zebulun….the Canaanites….became tributaries. With Issachar it may have been the other way round: Gen. 49:14,15. Would this explain the omission of Issachar from this chapter?
31.	Acco, probably the Crusader city Acre.
35.	Aijalon. The scene of Israel’s mightiest victory now back in enemy hands! Josh. 10:12.
	Joseph prevailed. Apparently after a while the border places which Dan was too weak to capture were taken by Ephraim.
36.	Amorites, an easy corruption of Edomites (LXX); and now the allusions to Sela (Petra) and Akrabbim fall easily into place.

Chapter 2

1.	An angel of the Lord. Similar exhortations from a prophet come in 6:8ff; 10:11ff.
	I will never break my covenant with you. But God cannot keep His covenant with a people who are set on disowning it; contrast Zech. 11:10.
2.	Cp. also Deut. 7:2,5.
3.	“You would not, therefore I will not”; cp. Rom. 1:28.
	In your sides. The italics show AV in difficulties. The slightest possible emendation (of a very common textual slip) gives “your enemies”, cp. RVm.
9.	Timnath-heres might also hint at faith in resurrection: Psa. 19:6.