Jude 1:22-23. The exhortations contained in these verses refer to the conduct of believers toward those who are exposed to seduction by the ἀσεβεῖς (Jude 1:4) (de Wette); not toward the false teachers themselves (Reiche), for these are of such a kind (Jude 1:12) that the church should have nothing to do with them. The best attested text is that which codex A affords: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους· οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεεῖτε (Lachmann and Tischendorf, ἐλεᾶτε) ἐν φόβῳ; see critical remarks.

οὓς μὲν … οὓς δέ instead of τοὺς μὲν … τοὺς δέ, see Winer, p. 100. According to this reading, three classes of the seduced are distinguished, and toward each a special conduct is prescribed. It is, however, asked whether, as Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, and others assume, there is a gradation from the curable to the incurable (a dubitantibus minusque depravatis ad … insanabiles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ab ipsorum contumacia prohibemur: Reiche); or conversely from the incurable to the curable. In reference to the first class it is said: οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους] The verb ἐλέγχειν denotes to rebuke some one’s sins by punishing him. The object for which this is done is not indicated in the word itself; it may be to lead the sinner to the acknowledgment of his sins, and thus to repentance, comp. 1 Corinthians 14:24; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:13; or it may also be condemnation, comp. particularly Jude Jude 1:15 (John 16:8; Titus 1:9). The explanation of Oecumenius is incorrect: φανεροῦτε τοῖς πᾶσιν τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῶν. Those who are to be punished are denoted διακρινομένους. Both the translation of the Vulgate: judicatos, and the interpretation of Oecumenius: κακείνους εἰ μὲν ἀποδιΐστανται ὑμῶν ἐλέγχετε, are incorrect. διακρίνεσθαι signifies in the N. T. either to contend, which is here unsuitable, or to doubt, and is opposed to πιστεύειν; comp. Matthew 21:21; Mark 11:23; Romans 4:20; especially Jam 1:6. This last passage shows that, although not equivalent to ἀπιστεῖν, it denotes the condition in which ἀπιστία has the preponderance over πίστις, the latter being a vanishing point.[47] It is evident that Jude does not consider the ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟΙ as weak believers (Schott), because, with reference to them, he will employ no other method than ἐλέγχειν (not ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΕῖΝ, or something similar); those seduced are in his view such as (punishment apart) are to be left to themselves.[48] In reference to the second class it is said: οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες] Their condition is not stated, but it is to be inferred from the conduct to be observed towards them. Toward those belonging to this class a σώζειν is to be employed, but of such a nature as is more precisely stated by ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. ἐκ πυρός is not from the fire of future judgment (Oecumenius, Fronmüller), but πῦρ is the present destruction, in which they already are (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott); ἁρπάζειν denotes hasty, almost violent, snatching out, and indicates that those are already in extreme danger of perdition; comp. Amos 4:11; Zechariah 3:2. Distinguished from the διακρινομένοις, the second class are to be considered as those who have not yet lost the faith, but have, through fellowship with the Antinomians, been enticed to their licentious life; these are to be rescued. σώζετε is evidently in contrast to ἐλέγχετε, and denotes them to be such as one may certainly hope to rescue, provided one snatches them with violence, and tears them out of this fellowship. In reference to the third class, Jude prescribes ἐλεεῖν (on the form ἐλεᾶτε, see Winer, p. 32 [E. T. 104]). This verb in the N. T. never means only “to have compassion” (Schott), but always to compassionate one with helpful love, as also ἔλεος is always used only of active compassion; so that with ἐλεεῖτε the exact contrary is said to what Luther finds expressed, when he explains it: “let them go, avoid them, and have nothing to do with them.” By this is denoted rather the helpful and saving benevolence by which the erring are again to be brought back to the right way. As this ἐλεεῖν makes a fellowship necessary with those upon whom it is exercised, Jude defines the same more precisely by ἐν φόβῳ; accordingly, they must not be wanting in foresight, lest they suffer injury themselves,[49] and he adds the participial sentence as an explanation of this ἘΝ ΦΌΒῼ: ΜΙΣΟῦΝΤΕς ΚΑῚ Κ.Τ.Λ.[50] This exhortation shows that Jude considers the third class as those who are indeed already involved, but who, by active compassion, may again be re-established; it is not so bad with them as with those toward whom only ἐλέγχειν is to be employed; but also it is not yet so bad as with those who can only be rescued by hastily snatching them.

[47] When Hofmann says, “that διακρίνεσθαι cannot have this meaning requires no proof,” he makes an entirely groundless assumption.

[48] In the reading of the Rec.: οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόμενοι, we are obliged to explain διακρίνεσθαι as = distinguished. Luther: “and make this distinction, that ye compassionate some;” or, more exactly, “compassionate the one, making a distinction,” namely, from others. But διακρινόμενοι must be passive, since not διακρίνεσθαι, but only διακρίνειν, has the meaning to distinguish.

[49] Schott is entirely mistaken when he says that ἐλεεῖν denotes here “a compassion which has, and may have, its definite peculiarity no longer in an impulse to help, hut only in a fear of acting wrongly, and in consequence of receiving injury;” in other words, a compassion which is no compassion.

[50] According to the reading of the Rec. ἐν φόβῳ belongs to σώζετε. Some expositors (Grotius, Stier, and others) incorrectly explain it of the fear of the persons to he rescued; correctly Arnaud: c’est à dire, prenant garde que, tout en cherchant à les convertir, ils ne vous séduisent pas vous-memes. Reiche incorrectly, with the reading A, separates ἐν φόβῳ from ἐλεᾶτε, and joins it with μιτοῦντες, whilst it would attract to it a very superfluous addition.

Hofmann considers the reading of א: καὶ οὕς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους οὕς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, as the correct one. In his explanation of this reading he distinguishes not three, but only two classes, assuming that only the first, but not the second οὓς δέ stands opposed to οὓς μέν; and that this latter οὓς δέ is to be considered rather as a resumption of the object mentioned in οὓς μέν. This opinion is, however, erroneous, since, according to it, the third οὕς is understood differently from the first and second οὕς, namely, as a pure relative pronoun; and since, in a highly arbitrary manner, “ἐν φόβῳ is explained as a consequence, united with an imperative ἐλεᾶτε to be taken from οὓς ἐλεᾶτε:” “whom ye compassionate, them compassionate with fear.” Also the explanation of the first member of the sentence: “the readers are to compassionate the one with distinction,” is to be rejected, since it has against it N. T. usage, according to which διακρίνεσθαι is never used as the passive of διακρίνειν in the sense of “to distinguish.”

The addition μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα[51] is correctly explained by Oecumenhis: ΠΡΟΣΛΑΜΒΆΝΕΣΘΕ … ΑὐΤΟῪς … ΜΕΤᾺ ΦΌΒΟΥ, ΠΕΡΙΣΚΕΠΤΌΜΕΝΟΙ ΜΉΠΩς Ἡ ΠΡΌΣΛΗΨΙς ΤΟΎΤΩΝ … ΛΎΜΗς ὙΜῖΝ ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ ΑἸΤΊΑ.

ΚΑΊ, even, gives greater emphasis to the thought. The expression τὸν χιτῶνα is to be understood in a literal, and not in a figurative sense (Bullinger: exuvias veteris Adami, concupiscentias et opera carnis). ΧΙΤῶΝ is the under garment worn next the skin, and which, by means of its direct contact with the flesh unclean by unchastity, etc., is itself soiled (ΣΠΙΛΌΩ only here and in Jam 3:6); comp. Revelation 3:4.

This garment is to the author the symbol of whatever, by means of external contact, shares in the moral destruction of those men. Calvin: vult fideles non tantum cavere a vitiorum contactu, sed ne qua ad eos contagio pertingat, quicquid affine est ac vicinum, fugiendum esse admonet.

[51] Both in the reading of the Rec. and in the reading of C this addition is surprising; one may regard it, with Jachmann, as the adversative reason of σώζετε (though ye hate); or, with de Wette, as the real reason (since ye hate, for which de Wette appeals to 1 Corinthians 5:6!).

Jude 1:22. οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους. On the reading see the Introduction. For the form ὃς μέν instead of ὁ μέν, cf. Matthew 13:8; Matthew 22:5, Luke 23:33, Acts 27:44, Romans 14:5, 1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Corinthians 11:21, 2 Corinthians 2:16, 2 Timothy 2:20, not used in Hebrews , 1 and 2 Pet., James or John. The doubled ὃς δέ is found in Matthew 21:35, ὃν μὲν ἔδειραν, ὃν δὲ ἀπέκτειναν, ὃ δὲ ἐλιθοβόλησαν. Matthew 25:15, ᾧ μὲν ἔδωκεν πέντε τάλαντα, ᾧ δὲ δύο, ᾧ δὲ ἕν. The use is condemned as a solecism by Thomas Magister and by Lucian, Soloec. 1, but is common in late Greek from the time of Aristotle, cf. Sturz. Dial. Maced. pp. 105 f. On the word ἐλέγχω (here wrongly translated “strafen,” in the sense of excommunication, by Rampf), see Const. Apost. vii. 5, 3, ἐλεγμῷ ἐλέγξεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου, and Hare’s excellent note [800] in his Mission of the Comforter, where he argues that the conviction wrought by the Spirit is a conviction unto salvation, rather than unto condemnation; and quotes Luecke as saying that “ἐλέγχειν always implies the refutation, the overcoming of an error, a wrong, by the truth and right. When this is brought before our conscience through the ἔλεγχος there arises a feeling of sin, which is always painful: thus every ἔλεγχος is a chastening, a punishment.” Compare Grote’s life-like account of the Socratic Elenchus in his Hist. of Greece.

[800] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

This verse seems to be referred to in Can. Apost. vi. 4, οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλʼ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου, which is also found in the Didache ii. 7, with the omission of οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις. Cf. John 16:8, ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως, 1 Corinthians 14:24, ἐλεγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων (the effect of the prophets’ teaching on an unbeliever), Titus 1:13, ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει. Titus 1:9, τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν 2 Timothy 4:2 (the charge to Timothy) ἔλεγξον, παρακάλεσον ἐι πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ, Revelation 3:19, ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω, Ephesians 5:13, τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται. There is a tone of greater severity in the ποιῆσαι κρίσιν καὶ ἐλέγξαι of the 15th verse, but even there we need not suppose that the preacher is hopeless of good being effected. The point is of importance in deciding the mutual relations of the three cases here considered.

διακρινομένους. We should have expected a nominative here to correspond with ἁρπάζοντες and μισοῦντες in the following clauses, and so the text. rec. has διακρινόμενοι, wrongly translated in A.V., as if it were the active διακρίνοντες, “making a difference”. This gives such a good sense that some commentators (e.g. Stier) have been willing to condone the bad Greek. It would have been better to alter the reading at once. Keeping the reading of the best MSS. we may either take the accusative as complementary to ἐλέγχετε (as we find in Plato, Theaet. 171 D, ἐμὲ ἐλέγξας ληροῦντα, Xen. Mem. 1, 7, 2, ἐλεγχθήσεται γελοῖος ὤν, Jelf. § 681), or simply as descriptive of the condition of the persons referred to. There is also a question as to the meaning we should assign to διακρ. Is it to be understood in the same sense as in Jam 1:6; Jam 2:4? In that case we might translate “convict them of their want of faith,” taking the participle as complementary to the verb; or “reprove them because of their doubts”. It seems more probable, however, that the meaning here is “convince them when they dispute with you,” which we may compare with 1 Peter 3:15, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον … ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου (cf. ἐν φόβῳ below). So taken, this first clause would refer to intellectual difficulties to be met by quiet reasoning; the force of διακρινόμενος being the same as that in Jude 1:9, τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρ., and in Socr. E.H. Jude 1:5, ὅ λαὸς εἶχεν ὁμόνοιαν καὶ οὐκέτι πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεκρίνοντο.

22. And of some have compassion, making a difference …] The MSS. present a strange variety of readings. Those of most authority give, Some rebuke (or convict, the same word as that used in John 16:8; Ephesians 5:11) when they debate with you (participle in the accusative case). The Received Text rests on the evidence of later MSS., but it may be questioned whether the participle (in this case in the nominative), which is in the middle voice, can have the meaning of “making a difference,” and even if we adopt that reading it would be better to render the word rebuke, as you debate with them, as with an implied reference to the same word as used in Jude 1:9. Internal evidence, as far as it goes, agrees with the better MSS. There is more point in the contrast between the teachers who need a severe rebuke and those who may be saved with fear than in the two degrees of pity presented by the Received Text.

Jude 1:22. Καὶ, and) He who has already taken measures to secure his own interests, may take measures for the interests of others.

Jude 1:22And of some have compassion, making a difference

This follows the reading, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε (ἐλεᾶτε) διακρινόμενοι. The best texts, however, read διακρινομένους, which would require, "On some have mercy who are in doubt. So Rev. Others, again, for ἐλεεῖτε, have mercy, read ἐλέγχετε, reprove, and render διακρινομένους, who are contentious: "Some who are contentious rebuke." The Rev. rendering better suits what follows.

Jude 1:22 Interlinear
Jude 1:22 Parallel Texts


Jude 1:22 NIV
Jude 1:22 NLT
Jude 1:22 ESV
Jude 1:22 NASB
Jude 1:22 KJV

Jude 1:22 Bible Apps
Jude 1:22 Parallel
Jude 1:22 Biblia Paralela
Jude 1:22 Chinese Bible
Jude 1:22 French Bible
Jude 1:22 German Bible

Bible Hub