Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle of Jude. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Jude 14-16
14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
This is the part of the Jude study where we spend a lot of time talking about 1 Enoch. Jude has just spent a few verses comparing the false teachers to villains from the Old Testament. Now he compares them to the bad guys referred to in 1 Enoch, too. This choice creates the appearance, for some, that Jude considers 1 Enoch to be inspired and canonical. We'll start our examination of these verses by looking at The Pulpit Commentaries:
Jude 1:14, Jude 1:15
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these. The Revisers render it, and to these also Enoch … prophesied. In the apocryphal writing from which the passage is taken Enoch is styled, as here, "the seventh from Adam." Seven occurs in Scripture as a sacred symbolical number. Its introduction here, therefore, is very generally understood to claim a peculiar authority and finality for the prophecy emitted by Enoch. But it may be intended simply to mark the high antiquity of the prophecy, and its connection with the man who was distinguished from others of the same name mentioned in the oldest Scriptures (Genesis 4:17; Genesis 25:4; Genesis 46:9) by his exceptional nearness to God. Saying, Behold the Lord cometh (literally, came) with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince (that is, to convict) all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches (or, with the Revised Version, all the hard things) which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. The "ten thousands of his saints" is better rendered "ten thousands of his holy ones," or, as the Revised Version gives it in the margin, "his holy myriads." For the "holy ones" here intended are the angels. The mention of this retinue of Jehovah is in accordance with the Hebrew idea which appears in such passages as Deuteronomy 33:2, Deuteronomy 33:3; Daniel 7:10; Zechariah 14:5 (where the better reading is, "and the holy ones with him"); and appears again in the New Testament (Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7, etc.). The clause, "among them," which might limit the ungodly to those in Israel, is omitted by the best authorities. The epithet "hard," which is applied to the "speeches," means hard in the sense of "harsh," not in the sense of "difficult to understand." It is the "churlish" which is applied to Nabal (1 Samuel 25:3). In the original the whole emphasis of the sentence is on the "ungodly sinners," which words are thrown forward to the close, thus: "all the hard things which they uttered against him—these impious sinners!" Near the beginning of that remarkable specimen of ancient apocalyptic literature, the Book of Enoch (Zechariah 1:9), we find these words, "And behold, he comes with myriads of the holy, to pass judgment upon them, and will destroy the impious, and will call to account all flesh for everything the sinners and the impious have done and committed against him" (Schodde's rendering). This is the passage which Jude quotes. He does so, however, with some modification; for the original, as we now have it, does not contain any reference to the "hard speeches" of the men of impiety. The book itself has had a singular history. Some acquaintance with it is discovered as early as the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' the 'Book of Jubilees,' and the 'Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.' It was freely used by the Fathers of the first five centuries. Though never formally recognized as canonical, it was in great esteem, largely accepted as a record of revelations, and regarded as the work of Enoch. It disappeared after Augustine's time, the only traces of its existence being some references to it in the writings of Syncellus and Nicephorus. From this time it was entirely lost sight of till rather more than a century ago, when the Abyssinian Church was discovered to possess an Ethiopic version of it. The well-known traveler, Bruce, obtained three copies of this version in 1773, and in 1821 an English translation was published by Archbishop Laurence. This was followed by a German translation by Hoffmann in 1833. The Ethiopic text itself was first issued by Archbishop Laurence in 1838, and afterwards in most scholarly fashion by Dillmann, in 1851, who also published a new German translation with important emendations in 1853. Since then much attention has been paid to the book. Within the last few years a corrected edition of Laurence's English translation has been published by the author of the 'Evolution of Christianity'; while another edition, with an English translation and important explanatory matter, has been issued by Professor Schodde of Ohio. An attempt has been made by some to bring the composition of the book down to Christian times, so that Enoch should quote Jude, not Jude Enoch. But there is every reason to believe that it belongs to the second century B.C. Certain portions of the book, however, are of later date. For it is scarcely possible to deny that it is the work of more than one hand. The original seems to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We cannot be far astray, therefore, in accepting it as the composition of a Jew of Palestine dating between B.C. 166 and 110. It professes to give a series of revelations or visions received by Enoch, in which the fall of the angels, the punishment of unrighteous men, the reward of the godly, the coming of Messiah, the mystery of the world-weeks, and the secrets of the kingdom of nature, as well as those of the kingdom of grace, are shown him. That such a book should have been ascribed to Enoch is not strange. It was suggested by the account which is given of him in Genesis 5:21-24. "The statements there left ample room," as Dr. Schodde well remarks, "for a vivid imagination to supply unwritten history, while antiquity and piety made Enoch a welcome name to give force and authority to a book, and the 'walking with God' of Enoch, and his translation to heaven, which correct exegesis has always read in this passage, founded his claim of having enjoyed close communion with God and having possessed superhuman knowledge."
The note covers a lot of ground, however, the Commentaries were written prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those findings give us texts which date much nearer to the original writing and let us know that 1 Enoch was (apparently) very popular during the 2nd Temple Period.
Jude refers to Enoch as "the 7th from Adam." This is made clear from the Scripture in various places - Genesis 5, 1 Chron. 1:1-3, and Luke 3:37-38.
The number 7 holds significance in ancient Hebrew / Jewish thinking. God rested on the 7th day (Gen. 2:2-3), Noah's ark came to rest on the 7th month (Gen. 8:4), the Israelites eat unleavened bread for 7 days (Ex. 12:15-16), everyone rests on the Sabbath every 7 days (Ex: 20:10-11). In John 4:52, the fever leaves "on the 7th hour" and in Revelation, we see seven used multiple times (seals, trumpets, etc.)
Enoch was the 7th generation from Adam, and also his life - though described only briefly - is mysterious and miraculous. Genesis tells us that Enoch - like Elijah after him - left this world without dying.
If Jude is looking to drive home a point, citing Enoch makes a lot of sense. He quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 directly, from the book's Greek version. What can we make of the fact that he quotes from 1 Enoch? Should we view the book as canonical? Why was it that the early Church did not?
One important reason for 1 Enoch failing to be given a canonical status is that it was not written in Hebrew. There is little evidence historically that any Jewish sect - perhaps outside of the one in Qumran - ever considered 1 Enoch canonical. Similarly, very few early Christians treated the book as canonical. A couple of early exceptions were Tertullian and Irenaeus.
Tertullian (/tərˈtʌliən/; Latin: Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus; c. 155 – c. 220 AD) was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. He was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He was an early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, including contemporary Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity", as well as "the founder of Western theology".
[...]
Tertullian did not have a specific listing of the canon; however, he quotes 1 John, 1 Peter, Jude, Revelation, the Pauline epistles and the four Gospels. After Tertullian's conversion to Montanism, he also started to use the Shepherd of Hermas. Tertullian made no references to the book of Tobit; however, in his book Adversus Marcionem he quotes the book of Judith. He quoted most of the Old Testament including many deuterocanonical books, however he never used the books of Chronicles, Ruth, Esther, 2 Maccabees, 2 John and 3 John. He defended the Book of Enoch and he believed that the book was omitted by the Jews from the canon. He believed that the epistle to the Hebrews was made by Barnabas. For Tertullian, scripture was authoritative; he used scripture as the primary source in almost every chapter of his every work, and very rarely anything else. He seems to prioritize the authority of scripture above anything else.
Irenaeus (/ɪrɪˈneɪəs/; Greek: Εἰρηναῖος Eirēnaios; c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heterodox or Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy and defining proto-orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles.
As there was not unanimity on canon, the early Church debated the issue and came to an apparent consensus that lasted for over a thousand years (until the time of the Protestant Reformation.)
As a quick aside, the usual argument between Protestants and Catholics concerning the Apocryphal books hinges on whether the books were affirmed as existing Scripture, at the Council of Trent in 1546, or whether they were added to the Bible at that time as a tool to argue against Luther's position against Purgatory. Luther and the Protestants argued that the books were never officially part of the canon while Catholics countered that they were. From wiki:
Apocrypha are well attested in surviving manuscripts of the Christian Bible. (See, for example, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate, and Peshitta.) After the Lutheran and Catholic canons were defined by Luther (c. 1534) and Trent (8 April 1546) respectively, early Protestant editions of the Bible (notably the Luther Bible in German and 1611 King James Version in English) did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section in between the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status.
Notably, for our purposes, 1 Enoch was never a part of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Bible. However, it is part of the canon used by the Ethiopian Jewish community Beta Israel, as well as the Christian Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
Getting back on track, the type of citation used here by Jude does not automatically infer canonicity, however, the reason this issue lingers to this day is that Jude cites 1 Enoch alongside Old Testament Scripture.
If Jude is not inferring canonicity to 1 Enoch, what else might be happening?
- He could be affirming Enoch, the man, and not Enoch the prophet.
- He might have been citing this verse in 1 Enoch for its convenience. The verse in question is actually a combination of three Old Testament verses. It's easier to quote 1 Enoch than to quote all three of the others.
Jeremiah 25:30-31
"You, therefore, shall prophesy against them all these words, and say to them:
"'The Lord will roar from on high,
and from his holy habitation utter his voice;
he will roar mightily against his fold,
and shout, like those who tread grapes,
against all the inhabitants of the earth.
The clamor will resound to the ends of the earth,
for the Lord has an indictment against the nations;
he is entering into judgment with all flesh,
and the wicked he will put to the sword,
declares the Lord.'
Isaiah 66:15-16
"For behold, the Lord will come in fire,
and his chariots like the whirlwind,
to render his anger in fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.
For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment,
and by his sword, with all flesh;
and those slain by the Lord shall be many.
Zechariah 14:5
And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.
1 Enoch 1:9 "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
On the whole, there isn't an answer on this issue that is so bright line that it will feel satisfactory to everyone. However, as the verse which Jude cites is paralleled in multiple places in Scripture that *is* accepted, I think we can feel comfortable about its us here.
There is some debate over the specific number meant by "ten thousans."
ten thousands / many thousands = †μυριάς myriás, moo-ree'-as; from G3463; a ten-thousand; by extension, a "myriad" or indefinite number:—ten thousand.
As you can see from the definition, there is not a scholarly consensus. Some render myriad to be ten thousand, while others render it as a very large but indefinite number.
This is not an uncommon way to describe those present with the Lord. He is frequently referred to in Scripture as the Lord of Hosts. (See also Dan 7:10, Heb 12:22, Rev. 5:11, and more.)
The language about the Lord executing judgment is also used several times in the Septuagint. (Gen 18:19, Gen 18:25, Deut. 10:18, Deut. 33:21, etc.) The point here that Jude is making is that the judgment of these False Teachers is assured.
Returning to The Pulpit Commentaries note now, for verse 16:
Jude 1:16
As in 2Pe 2:18, 2 Peter 2:19, the men are further stigmatized for the gross and profane selfishness to which they gave vent in speech. The present verse enlarges on the particular vice which the writer adds to the more general statement given in the Book of Enoch—the vice of uttering hard things against God. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. The words rendered "murmurers" and "complainers" occur nowhere else in the New Testament. It is doubtful whether any clear distinction can be drawn between them, except that the former term is the more general, and the latter the more specific, expressing one particular direction which the murmuring spirit takes, namely, that of discontent with their circumstances (so Huther, etc.). The clause, "walking after their own lusts," then declares the secret cause of their discontent. They made themselves, their own notions of things, their own ambitions and appetites, the one rule of their life. They therefore judged the lot which was assigned them by God unworthy of them and railed against it. We may gather from the parallel passage in 2 Peter that they forswore in especial the restraints put upon them by the providence or by the grace of God, and asserted a liberty which meant unbridled self-indulgence. The arrogant selfishness which refused to be fettered by Divine law naturally expressed itself also in "great swelling words," in loud protestations, perhaps, that nothing should interfere with their liberty. The phrase (which in the New Testament occurs again only in 2 Peter 2:18) is the same as is rendered "speak marvelous things" in Daniel's description of the king who "shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods," etc. (Daniel 11:36, Daniel 11:37). In the last clause we have a phrase similar to, but not quite the same as, the one which usually expresses the idea of having respect of persons. The Authorized Version, therefore, seems to do better than the Revised Version here in adopting a rendering which indicates that there is some difference from the usual form. The point of this difference may be that Jude's phrase expresses not merely the partial and unprincipled conduct which is one thing to the poor and another to the rich, but the open and unconcealed adulation with which these men hung upon those to whom it might be of advantage to attach themselves. The proud repudiation of the submission which was due to God and the Divine disposal of their lot was accompanied by a cringing, unblushing submission of their manhood to those of their fellow-men who had favours to bestow. Arrogance and servility are near of kin. The boaster is half-brother to the parasite.
"Grumblers" is a description given several times in the Old Testament, particularly in the Torah description of the Israelites' forty year journey in the wilderness, and the decision to use that particular word would likely have not been lost on Jude's original readers.
Exodus 15:24 And the people grumbled against Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?"
Numbers 14:36 36 And the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation grumble against him by bringing up a bad report about the land—
See also Exodus 16:2,7-9,12, and Numbers 14:2,27-29 and 16:41.
The use of this word carries with it not only the overt negative meaning of the word, but also - through its use in the Scripture - the lack of authority and the evil desire to take authority from Godly men who have shown many proofs of God's choice to put said men in authority. If the grumbling Israelites ere punished harshly for questioning the authority of not only Moses, but also of God, how much more so would these false teachers be punished for questioning the Apostles and the God who chose those Apostles?
The text of Jude gets somewhat less dense from here to the end of the Letter. We'll pick up next with Verse 17.
No comments:
Post a Comment