ἀσεβεῖς. This word may be almost said to give the keynote to the Epistle (cf. vv. 15, 18) as it does to the Book of Enoch.
τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα µετα- τιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν. With this we may compare 1 Peter ii. 16, μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες τὴς κακίας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, 2 Peter ii. 19, ἐλευθερίαν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, iii. 16, δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς στρεβλοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν, Rom. iii. 1, 2, 5-8 (If man is justified by free grace and not by works, then works are unnecessary), ib. Vi. τ, το απ. 2x.) © Com το ρα τ. John viii. 32-36, Gal. v. 13, ἡμεῖς ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε" µόνον μὴ τὴν
* Zahn, it is true, following Schott and others, argues in favour of this reference,
holding that πάλαι may be equivalent to “lately”;
and the word is of course
very elastic in meaning; but unless the contrast makes it clear that the reference is to a recent past, I think we are bound to assign to the word its usual force, especially here, where it stands first, giving the tone as it were to what follows, snd is further confirmed and explained by ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Αδάμ in ver. 14.
ά ο ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 257
τες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν µόνον δεσπότην 1 καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν
1 δεσποτην] add. θεον KLP, syrr. +.
ἐλευθερίαν eis ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί. For µετατιθέντες see Gal. i. 6, for ἀσέλγειαν 2 Peter ii. 2, πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις, ib. ii. 7, 18, 1 Peter iv. 3, and Lightfoot on Gal. ν. 19, ‘‘A man may be ἀκάθαρτος and hide his sin: he does not become ἀσελγής until he shocks public decency. In classical Greek the word ἀσέλγεια generally signifies insolence or violence towards another. . . . In the later lang- uage the prominent idea is sensuality . . . Cf. Polyb. xxxvii. 2, πολλὴ δέ τις ἀσέλγεια καὶ περὶ τὸς σωματικὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῷ συνεξηκολούθε.. Thus it has much the same range of meaning as UBpis”. On the meaning of χάρις see Robinson, Ephes. p. 221 f. The form χάριν is used elsewhere in the N.T., except in Acts xxiv. 27.
τὸν µόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. So 2 Peter ii. I, τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι. On the denial of God and Christ see 1 John ii. 22, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, 6 ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ Tov vidv, Tit. i. 16, Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται βδελυκ- τοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι, Matt. x. 33, ὅστιςᾶν ἀρνήσηταί µε ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός pov, ib. xxvi. 70 (Peter’s denial). Such denial is one of the sins noticed in the book of Enoch, Xxxvili. 2: “ When the Righteous One shall appear ... where will be the dwelling of the sinners and where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits?’ Ib. ΧΙ. 2, xlv. 2, xlvi. 7, xlviii. το: “* They will fall and not rise again . . . for they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed ”.
Two questions have been raised as to the meaning of the text, (1) is τ. µόνον δεσπότην to be understood of the Son, (2) what is the force of dpveto@ar? The objection to understanding δεσπότης of our Lord is that in every other passage in the N.T., where δεσπότης occurs, except in 2 Peter ii, 1 (on which see n.), it is spoken of God the Father; that, this being the case, it is difficult to under- stand how Christ can be called τὸν µόνον δεσπότην. It seems to me a forced ex- planation to say that the phrase µόνος δεσπότης has reference only to other earthly masters. No Jew could use it in
this connexion without thinking of the one Master in heaven. Again pévos is elsewhere used of the Father only, as in John v. 44, τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ µόνου Θεοῦ οὐ Γητεῖτε, xvii. 3, ἵνα γινώσκωσίν σε τὸν µόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεον Rom. xvi. 27, µόνῳ σόφῳ Θεῷ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Tim. i. 17, τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων . .. µόνῳ Θεῷ τιμὴ κ. δόξα, ib. vi. 15, 16, ὅ µακάριος κ. μόνος δυνάστης ὃ µόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, and by Jude himself, below 25, µόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰ. X., τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, δόξα. Wetst. quotes several passages in which Josephus speaks of God as 6 µόνος δεσπότης. On the other hand, the phrase, so taken, seems to contradict the general rule that, where two nouns, denoting attributes, are joined by καί, if the article is prefixed to the first noun only, the second noun will then be an attribute of the same subject. In the present case, however, the second noun (κύριον) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article, see Winer, pp. 147-163. A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13, προσδεχόµενοι τὴν µακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χ. Ἰ. ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς, where also I should take τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ to refer to the Father. Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5, οὐκ ἔχει KAnpovopiav ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ (where Alf. notes ‘‘ We cannot safely say here that the same Person is intended by X. κ. Θεοῦ merely on account of the omission of the art.; for (x) any introduction of such a prediction regarding Christ would here be mani- festly out of place, (2) Θεός is so fre- quently anarthrous that it is not safe to ground any such inference on its use here),” 2 Thess. i. 12, ὅπως ἐνδοξασθῇ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; τ Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1), διαµαρ- τύρομαι ἐγώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ *Incod καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων, which Chrysostom explains μάρτυρα καλῶ τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ; 2 Peter i. 1, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, where see myn. The denial of the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ may be implicit, shown by their comduct, though not asserted in