city. Nor should we be inclined to look for him in one of the smaller towns of Palestine. The brethren of the Lord were known to the Galatians and to the Corinthians. Who can say where they were not known, what places they had visited, or where they were usually to be found? We need not suppose that they stuck like limpets to the rock of Zion. Such little information as we possess gives quite a different idea.

Again, as to the Churches to which the Epistle was directed, we are left absolutely to conjecture. The only points which give us any kind of hold are the similarity of Jude to 2 Peter, and the similarity of the evils denounced to those of the Corinthian Church. But what conclusion can be built upon this slender basis? Corinth was a seaport town within a short sail of many places. In a limited number of hours an Antinomian missionary would find himself at any harbour in the Eastern half of the Mediterranean, at Thessalonica, or on the Asiatic shore, or at Alexandria. People were constantly going to and fro.

Dr. Chase thinks it probable that the Epistle was sent to the Syrian Antioch, and possibly to other Churches in that district. The reader will find his argument in Hastings' Bible Dictionary. Dr. Chase relies chiefly upon three points: that the Christians addressed were mainly Gentiles, that they were men among whom St. Paul had worked, and that they had received oral instruction from the apostles generally, and, therefore, probably lived at no great distance from Jerusalem. We may say that no better conjecture can be proposed; but even this is far from certain. It seems most probable that the Churches addressed were mainly Gentile, though this is disputed; that they were acquainted with St. Paul's form of teaching is most likely, but St. Paul had laboured in many places; they knew the apostles also, but how many of them or in what way is doubtful. For it is not necessary to understand eyov, in ver. 17, of oral instruction alone, and in any case we need not imagine that more than one or two of the Twelve had visited the district in question. But there is really no clear light. We might be tempted to infer from the resemblance between the two Epistles that the Churches addressed in 2 Peter and in Jude lay in proximity to one another; but even this is perilous. Jude may have been addressed to almost any community in which Greek was spoken. The two Epistles must have been written at nearly the same time, but they may have been sent in very different directions.

As to the personal characteristics of Jude something has already been said, and what little remains will be found in the notes. Compared with 2 Peter he exhibits a certain hastiness and tendency to take things at their worst, compared with either 1 or 2 Peter a certain hardness. No document in the New Testament is so exquisitely tender and pastoral as the First Epistle of St. Peter, and

even in the Second Epistle, in the midst of the anger and indignation so naturally excited by the cruel wickedness of the false teachers, there are still beautiful phrases, steeped in sympathy and fatherly affection. Jude is undoubtedly stern and unbending. On the other hand, Jude is in closer intellectual sympathy with St. Paul. St. Peter commends the Apostle of the Gentiles in high terms, yet with qualifications. St. Jude speaks Pauline language, and inclines towards the Pauline mysticism, though to what extent it is impossible to say. The notable word yuxikós is used also by his brother James in the same sense, and, though it belongs to the Pauline psychology, in which yn was sharply distinguished from πveûμa or vous, does not necessarily involve the Pauline conceptions of law or of justification. St. James was probably as mystical as St. Paul, yet he was a strong legalist. Like St. Paul, he held that whoever breaks one article of the law breaks the law as a whole (Jas. ii. 10; Gal. iii. 10). This view (it was held also by the Stoics) is highly metaphysical or mystical, but it led the two apostles to very different conclusions, the one to the necessity of perfect obedience, the other to the idea of a righteousness which was not of law at all. It is possible that Jude also belonged to the same type of Pharisaic mysticism as his brother. But in any case his ideas and language differ noticeably from those of St. Peter.

But here we touch upon a question which is unhappily among the obscurest of all the problems that surround the history of the early Church. Who can enumerate the countless modes in which the relation of law and gospel presented itself to the first believers ? Many writers content themselves with the rough and unintelligent distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, but this rests upon the mere accident of birth. The most Gentile of all teachers, St. Paul himself, was a Jew, and on either side there are endless shades and gradations. On the one extreme there are certain sects which we may call exclusively Jewish, or rather Oriental, but a Gentile Christian might be anything. Certainly there can be no greater error than that of using "Pauline" and "Gentile" as if these words were coextensive.

NOTES ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE.

1. On the general form of Jude's Address see notes on 1 Pet. i. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 1, and Introduction to 2 Peter, pp. 79, 219. Jude has, in common with 2 Peter, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, a similarly general description of those to whom the Epistle is directed, the verb AnOvvlein, and the word eipývn, which, however, is here combined with eos and ȧyárŋ. If we suppose that 2 Peter is here copying Jude, we must also suppose either that he went back to 1 Peter for part of his formula, or that (as Professor Harnack thinks) he forged both addresses, but adopted a simpler and more archaic form than that of Jude. But the easier inference is that Jude followed Peter; indeed, this is a necessary conclusion, if it is allowed that Jude here uses Pauline phrases.

Five personages of the name of Jude occur in apostolic or sub-apostolic times. (1) Judas Iscariot. (2) The Apostle 'Ioúdas 'Iakúẞov, Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; John xiv. 22; this "son of James" is commonly identified with Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus. (3) Judas, the Lord's brother, brother also of James, Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3, where he is named last or last but one. (4) Judas Barsabbas, Acts xv. 22-34. (5) Judas, the last Jewish bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian, Eus. H. E. iv. 5. 3.

The author of our Epistle gives two descriptions of himself— (1) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος : (2) ἀδελφὸς δε Ιακώβου. The first does not mean that he was an apostle (see note on 2 Pet. i. 1), and ver. 17 is generally understood to mean that he did not so regard himself. His brother James also was not an apostle. The second identifies our Jude with the brother of the Lord.

But why does he not call himself the brother of the Lord? Clement of Alexandria in his commentary, which still exists in a Latin version, answered the question thus-"Judas, qui catholicam scripsit epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph exstans ualde religiosus et cum sciret propinquitatem domini, non tamen dicit se ipsum fratrem eius esse, sed quid dixit? Judas seruus Jesu Christi, utpote domini, frater autem Jacobi." Zahn (Einleitung, ii. p. 84) adopts this explanation, which is probably correct. The sense is, "Jude, the slave, I dare not say the brother, of Jesus Christ, but certainly the brother of James."

The description, "brother of James," cannot have been needed as an introduction or recommendation, for the brethren of the Lord were all held in high esteem (Acts i. 14). Certainly Jude must have been well known to the people whom he is addressing. Nor can the description be taken to show that he is writing to Churches of Palestine or to Jewish Christians, by whom St. James was held in special honour. For, apart from the fact that St. James would not need his help, the brethren of the Lord were known to the Gentile Churches, for instance, to the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 5), and may quite possibly have visited and preached in Corinth.

τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρί . κλητοῖς. "To the Called, which in God the Father are beloved and kept unto Jesus Christ." The Father is our Father. Kλŋroîs is a substantive, as in Rom. i. 6; I Cor. i. 24. The word is not used by Peter in either of his Epistles, and belongs to the Pauline vocabulary; the same thing is true of ἅγιοι, ver. 3; ψυχικοί and πνεῦμα, ver. 19. Ἐν can hardly mean "by," for the preposition appears to be never used to denote the agent. Nor is it possible to translate "who in God are beloved by me and kept unto Jesus Christ," because both participles must be referred to the same agent. Yet again, there is no instance of ἐν Θεῷ being used in that general sense which belongs to ἐν Κυρίῳ or ev Xplor in the Pauline Epistles (unless 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. I are in point), and, even if there were, the sense required, "who in God are beloved by God," is not obtained without difficulty. But this seems to be the meaning. In ver. 21 St. Jude has avroùS ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε. St. Peter does not speak of the love of God, and here again we may possibly detect the same affinity between St. Paul and St. Jude that has already appeared in the word κλητοῖς.

The variants τοῖς ἔθνεσιν τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ and τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ yaoμévois have very little support. The latter was probably suggested by the embarrassment of the text; the former shows that at an early date the recipients of the Epistle were thought to have been Gentiles.

The Epistle cannot have been meant for the Church at large. It is directed to some group of Churches in which St. Jude was personally interested, and called forth by definite and peculiar cir

cumstances.

3. ἀγαπητοί . . . πίστει. "Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to do battle for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." With πâσaν σñoνdηv TOLOÚμevos compare the language of 2 Pet. i. 5, 10, 15, iii. 14. These repeated phrases have caught St. Jude's ear.

Emaуwvíleobaι is not used elsewhere in the New Testament; the preposition merely strengthens the verb, but the simple aywvieolas

is as strong a word as could be found. For Tapadoleίon ct. Acts xvi. 4; 1 Cor. xi. 2, xv. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 21; Spitta thinks that the use of the word here is suggested by this last passage.

ἅγιοι. "The saints" is here another name for Christians, as in Acts ix. 13, 32, 41; Rom. xii. 13; Heb. vi. 10; Apoc. v. 8, but the word is not used as a substantive by Mark, Luke, John (in Gospel or Epistles), James, or Peter. See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 56, 57. H TiσTis, in defence of which men are to contend, is not trust or the inner light, but a body of doctrine, dogmatic and practical, which is given to them by authority, is fixed and unalterable, and well known to all Christians. It is "your most holy faith," ver. 20, a foundation on which the readers are to build themselves up. It combined intellectual and moral truth. See Sanday and Headlam on Rom. i. 17. It had been attacked by men who turned the grace of our God into lasciviousness, that is to say, by Antinomians; but these men were mockers, ver. 18, and, from the emphasis with which Jude introduces his quotation from Enoch, ver. 14, we may presume that they mocked at the Parousia.

Jude's language about the Faith is highly dogmatic, highly orthodox, highly zealous. His tone is that of a bishop of the fourth century. The character may be differently estimated, but its appearance at this early date, before Montanism and before Gnosticism, is of great historical significance. Men who used such phrases believed passionately in a creed.

Lachmann, and some of the older school of commentators, placed a comma after ὑμῖν, and took περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας with ypáva: but recent scholars generally reject this unnatural punctuation.

St. Jude says that he had been busy with, or intent upon, writing to his people περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, an ordinary pastoral Epistle dealing with general topics of instruction and exhortation, but found it necessary to change his plan and utter this stirring cry to arms. Evidently he is referring to some definite and unexpected circumstance. News had been brought to him of the appearance of the false teachers; possibly he had just received 2 Peter; if so, we can understand the use which he makes of that Epistle.

De Wette, Brückner, Spitta, Zahn think that the writing referred to by the ypaper was not an ordinary Epistle, but a treatise of some considerable length; but the age was hardly one of treatises, and there is nothing in the text to support the idea.

παρεισέδυσαν

4. Taρelσéduσav yáp. "For certain men have crept in privily, who of old were appointed in scripture unto this doom." Γάρ introduces the reason of ἀνάγκην ἔσχον. For παρεισέδυσαν Β has Taрeισedúnσav, a vulgar form; see Blass, p. 43. The aorist is here not distinguishable in sense from the perfect; as to the meaning of the compound verb, refer to note on Tapeάyew, 2 Pet. ii. 1.