The Pulpit Commentary — Jude — Section 6

tion i• the r0lRtinnship to Rnother porson Messianic kingdom. This cllll is nscribCLl in the Church, better known o.nd more usually, we may perhaps BI\Y univers,illy, influentiRI tlnrn bimaeH. For the Jnmes to God himself. In the Gospels we fl11<l here mentione<l is generRlly, Rnd we l--elieve the term "calll'd" contre.eted with tho term rightly, identifkd, not with the brother (or "elect" or "chosen" (!lfott. xxii. H), so ~on) of Alphcns who RppBRrs among the that the onll is of uncertain issue. On twelve, but wit.h the Lord's brother, who the other hand, in the Epistle•, 1\t lenst ia represented by the Book of the Acts o.• in iu Paulino passages of grc11t doctrinal sig- pr~minent honour Rnd Ruthority in the nificance (Hom. viii, 28, 30; xi. 2!l, oto.), mother Churoh of Jerus,.lem. Jude, there- the election 1\ppears as the cause, the call fore. might have called himself the "brother as the result; rind the latter thon is of of the Lord." He abate.ins from doing so, certain issue, or, in the langunge of theo- it i• supposed by some, because that title logy, effectual. It is held by many that had become the recognized and almost throughout the Epistles, or at least c.on~ecrnted nemo of James. Or it may throughout the Pauline group, the term rnther be that be shrank from what might bas uniformly the sense of e. co.II not merely seem an appenl to an earthly kinship which to the membership of the Church, but to had been sunk in a higher spiritual re- final salvation. Whether this is the cnee, lationahip. The choice of the title is at the o.nd how ihe usage of the Epistles is to be l!ll.me time a weighty argument age.inst hie harmonized with that of the Gospels, 111·0 belonging to the twelve. Unable to put questions which require further considera- forward any apostolic dignity or commission tion. It appears, however, that in the 1111 his warrant for writing, and as bis claim Epistles the idea of the election and the upon his readers' attention, he places him- idea of the call often lie so near each other eelf beneath the shield of the more eminent that they seem to be different expressions name of a brother, who also was the antbor of. one Divine act, e.nd that an act which of an Epistle in all probability e:li:teusively makes its object snre. In passages like circulated before this one W8j! put forth. the present, the "called" seems .parallel Those to whom he writes are also most care- t.o the "elect" of the inscriptions of 1 Peter ful! y desc1ibed. The terms of this threefold e.nd 2 John, e.nd probe.bly hns the deeper designation are unusual and somewhat Pauline meaning-ll meaning which has difficult to construe. The text itself is .its roots no doubt in the Old Testament not quite certain. The Received Text e.nd conception of the •certain election· of a our Authorized Version give the reading believing remuant under the theoorncy "l!ll.Dctified," which has the support of one (1 Kings xix. 18; Isa. !ix. 20, etc.). The or two documents of good charocter, and is parties addressed are described more par- still accepted, chiefly on the ground of ticularly as "beloved in God the Father!' intrinsic fitness, by some scholars of rank. The difficulty which is felt by the best It must be displa.ced, however, by the reading interpreters of the present day in explain- " beloved," which bas on its side three of the ing the preposition "in" as it stands in five primary uncials (the Vatican, Sinaitic, this unusual connection, appears also in e.nd Alexa.ndri&u) as well as important the renderings of the old Euglish Versions. ver11ions and patristic quotatiOill!, and is Tyndale and Cranmer, indeed, follow the a.ooepted by the best recent authorities. Received Text, and translate "sanctified in This, however, gives us so unnsual e. com• God the Father." The Genevau also gives bina.tion, " beloved in God the Father," "sanctified of God the Father." Bull that some are driven to the conclllbion Wickliffe and the Rhemish Version follow that the preposition he.s goi somehow into the other text (which is that of the Vulgate), e. wrong ple.ce. Dr. Hort pronounces the e.nd translate it, the former, '' to thes the.~ connection to be " without analogy," and ben loued that ben in God the fadir; " the to admit of " no natural interpretation ; " latter, " to them ihat are in God the and the great critical edition of MeBlll's. father beloved." The difficulty is met by Westcott and Hort marks the clause as a, va1·iety of doubtful expedients. Some one which pl'Obe.uly conta.ills some primitive cnt the knot by imposing upon the pre- error. Taking the terms, however, as the positio.n the souse of " by " or the equally vw;t preponderance of docUIQento.ry evidence alien sense of " on account of.'' Somti preeents them, we have thr"8 brief descrip- take it t.o mean " in the case of God," tions of the readerll, all sufficiently intelli- 01 " as regards God." which comes nearer gible, e.nd ea.oh obviow.ly in point. The the point, bnt is yet short of what is in- most general of the three descriptive notes tended. Others would render it " within is the " called." The idee. of e. " call" the sphere of God." . underst,mding ·the pervades all Scripture. It appears in a. rea<lers to be described as the objects of the variety of e.pplic;ations, of which the most writer's love-a love which is no mere disiillct:ive iii that of e. call bto the natural afi'cction, but iusrire<l by God aud 1-25,] THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE. 3