Yudas 1:7-9

1:7 So also ¹  Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, ²  since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire ³  in a way similar to ⁴  these angels, ⁵  are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

1:8 Yet these men, ⁶  as a result of their dreams, ⁷  defile the flesh, reject authority, ⁸  and insult ⁹  the glorious ones. ¹⁰  1:9 But even ¹¹  when Michael the archangel ¹²  was arguing with the devil and debating with him ¹³  concerning Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a slanderous judgment, but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

Yudas 1:12

1:12 These men are ¹⁴  dangerous reefs ¹⁵  at your love feasts, ¹⁶  feasting without reverence, ¹⁷  feeding only themselves. ¹⁸  They are ¹⁹  waterless ²⁰  clouds, carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit ²¹  – twice dead, ²²  uprooted;

Yudas 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Jude, ²³  a slave ²⁴  of Jesus Christ and brother of James, ²⁵  to those who are called, wrapped in the love of ²⁶  God the Father and kept for ²⁷  Jesus Christ.

1 Samuel 11:1-3

Saul Comes to the Aid of Jabesh

11:1 ²⁸ Nahash ²⁹  the Ammonite marched ³⁰  against Jabesh Gilead. All the men of Jabesh Gilead said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us and we will serve you.”

11:2 But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “The only way I will make a treaty with you is if you let me gouge out the right eye of every one of you and in so doing humiliate all Israel!”

11:3 The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Leave us alone for seven days so that we can send messengers throughout the territory of Israel. If there is no one who can deliver us, we will come out voluntarily to you.”

1 Samuel 11:1

Saul Comes to the Aid of Jabesh

11:1 ³¹ Nahash ³²  the Ammonite marched ³³  against Jabesh Gilead. All the men of Jabesh Gilead said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us and we will serve you.”

1 Samuel 19:1-3

Saul Repeatedly Attempts to Take David’s Life

19:1 Then Saul told his son Jonathan and all his servants to kill David. But Saul’s son Jonathan liked David very much. ³⁴  19:2 So Jonathan told David, “My father Saul is trying ³⁵  to kill you. So be careful tomorrow morning. Find ³⁶  a hiding place and stay in seclusion. ³⁷  19:3 I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are. I will speak about you to my father. When I find out what the problem is, ³⁸  I will let you know.”

[1:7]  ¹ tn Grk “as.”

[1:7]  ² tn Grk “the towns [or cities] surrounding them.”

[1:7]  ³ tn Grk “strange flesh.” This phrase has been variously interpreted. It could refer to flesh of another species (such as angels lusting after human flesh). This would aptly describe the sin of the angels, but not easily explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It could refer to the homosexual practices of the Sodomites, but a difficulty arises from the use of ἕτερος ({etero"; “strange,” “other”). When this is to be distinguished from ἄλλος (allos, “another”) it suggests “another of a different kind.” If so, would that properly describe homosexual behavior? In response, the language could easily be compact: “pursued flesh other than what was normally pursued.” However, would this find an analogy in the lust of angels (such would imply that angels normally had sexual relations of some sort, but cf. Matt 22:30)? Another alternative is that the focus of the parallel is on the activity of the surrounding cities and the activity of the angels. This is especially plausible since the participles ἐκπορνεύσασαι (ekporneusasai, “having indulged in sexual immorality”) and ἀπελθοῦσαι (apelqousai, “having pursued”) have concord with “cities” (πόλεις, poleis), a feminine plural noun, rather than with Sodom and Gomorrah (both masculine nouns). If so, then their sin would not necessarily have to be homosexuality. However, most likely the feminine participles are used because of constructio ad sensum (construction according to sense). That is, since both Sodom and Gomorrah are cities, the feminine is used to imply that all the cities are involved. The connection with angels thus seems to be somewhat loose: Both angels and Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in heinous sexual immorality. Thus, whether the false teachers indulge in homosexual activity is not the point; mere sexual immorality is enough to condemn them.

[1:7]  ⁴ tn Or “in the same way as.”

[1:7]  ⁵ tn “Angels” is not in the Greek text; but the masculine demonstrative pronoun most likely refers back to the angels of v. 6.

[1:8]  ⁶ tn The reference is now to the false teachers.

[1:8]  ⁷ tn Grk “dreaming.” The participle ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι (enupniazomenoi, “dreaming”) is adverbial to the pronoun οὗτοι (|outoi, “these”), though the particular relationship is not clear. It could mean, “while dreaming,” “by dreaming,” or “because of dreaming.” This translation has adopted the last option as Jude’s meaning, partially for syntactical reasons (the causal participle usually precedes the main verb) and partially for contextual reasons (these false teachers must derive their authority from some source, and the dreams provide the most obvious base). The participle ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι was sometimes used of apocalyptic visions, both of true and false prophets. This seems to be the meaning here.

[1:8]  ⁸ tn Most likely, the authority of the Lord is in view. This verse, then, echoes the indictment of v. 4: “they deny our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

[1:8]  ⁹ tn The construction with the three verbs (“defile, “reject,” and “insult”) involves the particles μέν, δέ, δέ (men, de, de). A more literal (and pedantic) translation would be: “on the one hand, they defile the flesh, on the other hand, they reject authority, and on another hand, they insult the glorious ones.”

[1:8]  ¹⁰ sn The glorious ones refers to angelic beings rather than mere human beings, just as in 2 Pet 2:10 (on which this passage apparently depends). Whether the angelic beings are good or evil, however, is difficult to tell (hence, the translation is left ambiguous). However, both in 2 Pet 2:11 and here, in Jude 9, the wicked angels seem to be in view (for not even Michael insults them).

[1:9]  ¹¹ tn The word “even” is not in Greek; it is implied by the height of the contrast.

[1:9]  ¹² sn According to Jewish intertestamental literature (such as 1 En. 20), Michael was one of seven archangels.

[1:9]  ¹³ tn The sentence structure is a bit different in Greek. Literally it reads: “But Michael the archangel, when arguing with the devil and disputing.”

[1:12]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “these are the men who are.”

[1:12]  ¹⁵ tn Though σπιλάδες (spilades) is frequently translated “blemishes” or “stains,” such is actually a translation of the Greek word σπίλοι (spiloi). The two words are quite similar, especially in their root or lexical forms (σπιλάς [spila"] and σπίλος [spilos] respectively). Some scholars have suggested that σπιλάδες in this context means the same thing as σπίλοι. But such could be the case only by a stretch of the imagination (see BDAG 938 s.v. σπιλάς for discussion). Others suggest that Jude’s spelling was in error (which also is doubtful). One reason for the tension is that in the parallel passage, 2 Pet 2:13, the term used is indeed σπίλος. And if either Jude used 2 Peter or 2 Peter used Jude, one would expect to see the same word. Jude, however, may have changed the wording for the sake of a subtle wordplay. The word σπιλάς was often used of a mere rock, though it normally was associated with a rock along the shore or one jutting out in the water. Thus, the false teachers would appear as “rocks” – as pillars in the community (cf. Matt 16:18; Gal 2:9), when in reality if a believer got too close to them his faith would get shipwrecked. Some suggest that σπιλάδες here means “hidden rocks.” Though this meaning is attested for the word, it is inappropriate in this context, since these false teachers are anything but hidden. They are dangerous because undiscerning folks get close to them, thinking they are rocks and pillars, when they are really dangerous reefs.

[1:12]  ¹⁶ tc Several witnesses (A C^vid 1243 1846 al), influenced by the parallel in 2 Pet 2:13, read ἀπάταις (apatai", “deceptions”) for ἀγάπαις (agapai", “love-feasts”) in v. 12. However, ἀγάπαις has much stronger and earlier support and should therefore be considered original.

[1:12]  sn The danger of the false teachers at the love feasts would be especially pernicious, for the love feasts of the early church involved the Lord’s Supper, worship, and instruction.

[1:12]  ¹⁷ tn Or “fearlessly.” The term in this context, however, is decidedly negative. The implication is that these false teachers ate the Lord’s Supper without regarding the sanctity of the meal. Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-22.

[1:12]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “shepherding themselves.” The verb ποιμαίνω (poimainw) means “shepherd, nurture [the flock].” But these men, rather than tending to the flock of God, nurture only themselves. They thus fall under the condemnation Paul uttered when writing to the Corinthians: “For when it comes time to eat [the Lord’s Supper,] each one goes ahead with his own meal” (1 Cor 11:21). Above all, the love-feast was intended to be a shared meal in which all ate and all felt welcome.

[1:12]  ¹⁹ tn “They are” is not in Greek, but resumes the thought begun at the front of v. 12. There is no period before “They are.” English usage requires breaking this into more than one sentence.

[1:12]  ²⁰ tn Cf. 2 Pet 2:17. Jude’s emphasis is slightly different (instead of waterless springs, they are waterless clouds).

[1:12]  ²¹ sn The imagery portraying the false teachers as autumn trees without fruit has to do with their lack of productivity. Recall the statement to the same effect by Jesus in Matt 7:16-20, in which false prophets will be known by their fruits. Like waterless clouds full of false hope, these trees do not yield any harvest even though it is expected.

[1:12]  ²² tn Grk “having died twice.”

[1:12]  sn Twice dead probably has no relevance to the tree metaphor, but has great applicability to these false teachers. As in Rev 20:6, those who die twice are those who die physically and spiritually. The aphorism is true: “born once, die twice; born twice, die once” (cf. Rev 20:5; John 3, 11).

[1:1]  ²³ tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ²⁴ tn Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:1]  sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s slave or servant is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For a Jew this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

[1:1]  ²⁵ sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.

[1:1]  ²⁶ tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”

[1:1]  ²⁷ tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.

[11:1]  ²⁸ tc 4QSam^a and Josephus (Ant. 6.68-71) attest to a longer form of text at this point. The addition explains Nahash’s practice of enemy mutilation, and by so doing provides a smoother transition to the following paragraph than is found in the MT. The NRSV adopts this reading, with the following English translation: “Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.” This reading should not be lightly dismissed; it may in fact provide a text superior to that of the MT and the ancient versions. But the external evidence for it is so limited as to induce caution; the present translation instead follows the MT. However, for a reasonable case for including this reading in the text see the discussions in P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 199, and R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC), 103.

[11:1]  ²⁹ sn The name “Nahash” means “serpent” in Hebrew.

[11:1]  ³⁰ tn Heb “went up and camped”; NIV, NRSV “went up and besieged.”

[11:1]  ³¹ tc 4QSam^a and Josephus (Ant. 6.68-71) attest to a longer form of text at this point. The addition explains Nahash’s practice of enemy mutilation, and by so doing provides a smoother transition to the following paragraph than is found in the MT. The NRSV adopts this reading, with the following English translation: “Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.” This reading should not be lightly dismissed; it may in fact provide a text superior to that of the MT and the ancient versions. But the external evidence for it is so limited as to induce caution; the present translation instead follows the MT. However, for a reasonable case for including this reading in the text see the discussions in P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 199, and R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC), 103.

[11:1]  ³² sn The name “Nahash” means “serpent” in Hebrew.

[11:1]  ³³ tn Heb “went up and camped”; NIV, NRSV “went up and besieged.”

[19:1]  ³⁴ tn Heb “delighted greatly in David.”

[19:2]  ³⁵ tn Heb “seeking.”

[19:2]  ³⁶ tn Heb “stay in.”

[19:2]  ³⁷ tn Heb “and hide yourself.”

[19:3]  ³⁸ tn Heb “when I see.”