תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

Le Clerc, and Beausobre, imagined that he was a Gentile convert who would not receive Jewish Christians. But it is most probable that he was an ambitious elder or bishop in the church of which Gaius was a member, and that, having been converted from Judaism, he opposed the admission of the Gentiles, and set himself up as the head of a party in opposition to the apostles. If (as we suppose) the Gaius to whom this Epistle was addressed was the generous "host of the church at Corinth," it is possible that this Diotrephes might have been the leading opponent of Saint Paul in that city, whom he forbore to name out of delicacy, though he censured bis conduct. See 1 Cor. iii. 3-5. iv. 6. &c.

Demetrius, who is so highly commended by the apostle in this Epistle, is thought to have held some sacred office in the church of which Gaius was a member; but this opinion is rejected by Dr. Benson, because on that supposition Gaius must have known him so well, as to need no information concerning his character from the apostle. He therefore believed him to have been the bearer of this letter, and one of the brethren who went forth to preach to the Gentiles. With this conjecture Rosenmüller coincides. Calmet supposes that he was a member of the same church as Gaius, whose piety and hospitality he imitated. But whoever Demetrius was, his character and deportment were the reverse of the character and conduct of Diotrephes for the apostle speaks of the former as having a good testimony from all men, and whose temper and behaviour were in every respect conformable to the precepts of the Gospel, and therefore Saint John recommends him as an example to Gaius, and the other members of the church to which he belonged.1

SECTION VII.

ON THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.

I. Account of the author.-II. Genuineness and authenticity. — III. Date.-IV. Of the persons to whom this Epistle was addressed.V. Its occasion and scope.-VI. Observations on its style.

I. JUDE or Judas, who was surnamed Thaddeus and Lebbeus, and was also called the brother of our Lord (Matt. xiii. 55.), was the son of Alpheus, brother of James the Less, and one of the twelve apostles. We are not informed when or how he was called to the apostleship; and there is scarcely any mention of him in the New Testament, except in the different catalogues of the twelve apostles. The only particular incident related concerning Jude is to be found in John xiv. 21-23.; where we read that he addressed the following question to his divine master - Lord! how is it that thou wilt manifest

1 Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 442-456. Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 584-607.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 425-437. Benon on the Catholic Epistles, pp. 663-680. Buddei, Ecclesia Apostolica, pp. 314-316. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 1150-1152. Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 653-656. Lampe, in Evang. Joannis, tom. i. pp. 111-115.

thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Full of ideas of temporal grandeur and universal monarchy, he could not imagine how our Saviour could establish a kingdom without manifesting it to the world ;a proof how much this apostle was actuated by Jewish prejudices, and what delusive hopes he cherished, in common with all the other apostles, of soon beholding his Master erect a powerful and magnificent empire.

As Jude continued with the rest of the apostles after our Lord's resurrection and ascension (Acts i. 13.), and was with them on the day of Pentecost (ii. 1.), it is not unreasonable to suppose, that, after having received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, he preached the Gospel for some time in Judæa, and performed miracles in the name of Christ. And as his life seems to have been prolonged, it is probable that he afterwards quitted Judæa, and preached the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, in other countries. It has been said, that he preached in Arabia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia, and that he suffered martyrdom in the last-mentioned country. The Syrians still claim him as their apostle; but we have no account of his travels upon which we can rely, and it may even be questioned whether he was a martyr.1

II. In the early ages of Christianity, the Epistle of Jude was rejected by several persons, because the apocryphal books of Enoch, and of the ascension of Moses, were supposed to be quoted in it; and Michaelis has rejected it as spurious. We have, however, the most satisfactory evidences of the authenticity of this Epistle. It is found in all the antient catalogues of the sacred writings of the New Testament it is asserted to be genuine by Clement of Alexandria, and is quoted as saint Jude's production by Tertullian, by Origen, and by the greater part of the antients noticed by Eusebius. Independently of this external evidence, the genuineness of the Epistle of Saint Jude is confined by the subjects discussed in it, which are in every respect suitable to the character of an apostle of Jesus Christ: for the writer's design was, to characterise and condemn the false teachers who endeavoured in that age to make proselytes to their erroneous and dangerous tenets, to reprobate the impious doctrines which they taught for the sake of advantage, and to enforce the practice of holiness on

1 It is more certain that Jude was a married man, and had children: for Eusebius relates, on the authority of the ecclesiastical historian Hegesippus, (a converted Jew, who flourished in the second century,) that the emperor Domitian, in a fit of jealousy, ordered inquiry to be made concerning the posterity of David, on which occasion some of the grandchildren of Jude were brought before him. The emperor, first asking them several questions respecting their profession and manner of life, which was husbandry, next inquired concerning the kingdom of Christ, and when it should appear? To this they replied, that it was a heavenly and spiritual, not a temporal kingdom; and that it would not be manifested till the end of the world. Domitian, thus finding that they were mean persons and perfectly harmless, dismissed them unbound, and by edict appeased the persecution which had been raised against the church. Hegesippus adds, that, on their release, the grandchildren of Jude afterwards presided over churches, both as being martyrs (more correctly confessors), and also as being allied to our Lord. Euseb. Hist. Ecel. lib. iii. c. 19, 20.

2 See the passages of the above-named writers in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 613-618.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 440–443.

all who professed the Gospel. In short, as Dr. Macknight most truly observes, there is no error taught, no evil practice enjoined, for the sake of which any impostor could be induced to impose a forgery of this kind upon the world.

With regard to the objection against the genuineness of this Epistle, which is derived from the quotation by Saint Jude of an apocryphal book of Enoch, (which has already been noticed,)1 it is to be observed, that Jude, by quoting such book, gives it no authority. It was no canonical book of the Jews; and though such a book existed among them, and was apocryphal, yet it might contain some things that were true. Saint Jude's quoting from it the prophecy under consideration would not lessen the authority of his Epistle, any more than Saint Paul's quotations from the heathen poets Aratus (Acts xvii. 28.), Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33.), and Epimenides (Tit. i. 12.), have lessened the authority of the history of the Acts, and of that apostle's letters, where these quotations are found. The reason is (as Macknight most forcibly observes), if the things contained in these quotations were true in themselves, they might be mentioned by an inspired writer without giving authority to the poems from which they were cited. In like manner, if the prophecy ascribed to Enoch, concerning the future judgment and punishment of the wicked, was agreeable to the other declarations of God respecting that event, Jude might cite it, because Enoch (who, like Noah, was a preacher of righteousness) might actually have delivered such a prophecy, though it is not recorded in the Old Testament; and because his quoting it did not establish the authority of the book whence he took it, if he took it from any book extant in his time.

66

The preceding observations apply with equal force to verse 9. in which the apostle is supposed to cite an apocryphal relation or tradition concerning the archangel Michael's disputing with Satan for the body of Moses. This is by some writers referred to a book called the Assumption or Ascension of Christ," which in all probability was a forgery much later than the time of Jude; but Dr. Lardner thinks it much more credible that the apostle alludes to the vision in Zech. iii. 1-3.; and this opinion is adopted and elucidated by Dr. Macknight in his note on the verse in question. In further illustration of this verse, we may remark, that it was a Jewish maxim, that "it is not lawful for man to prefer ignominious reproaches, even against wicked spirits." Might not the apostle, then, have used it merely as a popular illustration (without vouching for the fact) of that sober and wholesome doctrine, not to speak evil of dignities! from the example of an archangel, who did not venture to rail even at Satan, but meekly said "The LORD rebuke thee !" The hypothesis, that Jude copied the prophecy of Enoch from the writings of Zoroaster, (which some continental critics have imagined,) is too absurd to deserve a serious refutation.2

1 See Vol. II. p. 444. supra.

2 The reader will find an interesting account of the different hypotheses, which critics have entertained concerning the prophecy of Enoch, mentioned by Jude, in

III. The time and place, when and where this Epistle was written, are extremely uncertain. Dr. Mill fixes its date to the year 90, principally because the false teachers, whom Saint Peter describes as yet to come, are mentioned by Jude as already come. But on a comparison of this Epistle with the second of Saint Peter, there does not appear to be such a remarkable difference in their phraseology, as will be sufficient to prove that Saint Jude wrote his Epistle so long after Saint Peter's second Epistle, as Dr. Mill supposed: though it proves, as most critics agree, that it was written after the latter. The very great coincidence in sentiment and style between these two Epistles renders it likely that they were written about the same time; and, since we have seen that the second Epistle of Saint Peter was in all probability written early in A. D. 65, we are induced with Lardner to place it towards the close of the same year, or perhaps in A. D. 66. Bishop Tomline, however, dates it in a. D. 70; Beausobre and L'Enfant, between A. D. 70 and 75; and Dodwell and Dr. Cave, in 71 or 72.

IV. There is much diversity of opinion concerning the persons to whom this Epistle was addressed. Estius and Witsius were of opinion that Saint Jude wrote to Christians every where, but especially to the converted Jews. Dr. Hammond thought that the Epistle was directed to Jewish Christians alone, and with the design of guarding them against the errors of the Gnostics. Dr. Benson also thought that it was written to Jewish believers, especially to those of the western dispersion. Moldenhawer was of opinion that it was inscribed to the eastern churches, among whom the apostle had probably laboured. But, from the inscription,' Drs. Lardner and Macknight, Bishop Tomline and Dr. A. Clarke, concur in thinking that it was written to all, without distinction, who had embraced the Gospel. The only reason, Dr. Macknight remarks, which has induced commentators to suppose that Jude wrote to the Jewish believers alone, is, that he makes use of arguments and examples taken from the sacred books of the Jews. But Saint Paul, we have seen, followed the same course when writing to the Gentiles; and both apostles did so with propriety, not only because all who embraced the Gospel acknowledged the authority of the Jewish Scriptures, but also because it was of the greatest importance to make the Gentiles sensible that the Gospel was in perfect unison with the antient revelation.

V. The design of this Epistle is, to guard believers against the false teachers who had begun to insinuate themselves into the Christian church; and to contend with the utmost earnestness and zeal for the true faith, against the dangerous tenets which they disseminated, resolving the whole of Christianity into a speculative belief and outward profession of the Gospel. And having thus cancelled the obligations Laurmann's Collectanea, sive Note Critica et Commentarius in Epistolam Judæ, pp. 137-173. 220–233. 8vo. Groninge, 1818. See also Calmet's Commentaire Litteral, tom. viii. pp. 1034-1040.

To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.....Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the COMMON salvation, &c., Jude 1. 3.

of morality and personal holiness, they taught their disciples to live in all manner of licentiousness, and at the same time flattered them with the hope of divine favour, and of obtaining eternal life. The vile characters of these seducers are further shown, and their sentence is denounced; and the Epistle concludes with warnings, admonitions, and counsels to believers, how to persevere in faith and godliness themselves, and to rescue others from the snares of the false teachers.

VI. There is very great similarity between the Epistle of Jude and the second chapter of Saint Peter's second Epistle, in subject, style, vehemence, and holy indignation against impudence and lewdness, and against those who insidiously undermine chastity, purity, and sound principles. The expressions are remarkably strong, the language is animated, and the figures and comparisons are bold, apt, and striking. In the Epistle of Jude, particularly, there is an energy, a force, a grandeur of expression and style-an apparent labour for words and images, expressive enough to give the reader a just and adequate idea of the profligate characters he exposes; and the whole is admirably calculated to show how deeply the holy apostle was grieved at the scandalous immoralities of those who called themselves Christians, and with what fervour and courage he tore off the masks from these hypocrites, that the church and the world might see all the turpitude and deformity that lurked beneath it.1

1 Benson on the Catholic Epistles, pp. 437-448. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 619-627.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 443-447. Macknight's Preface to Jude Blackwall's Sacred Classics, vol, i. pp. 304, 305.

[blocks in formation]
« הקודםהמשך »