Jude 1:11

οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Καὶν ἐπορεύθησαν. For the use of the aorist see note on Jude 1:4. παρεισεδύησαν : for the phrase cf. Blass, Gr. p. 119, and 2 Peter 2:15, ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαάμ. The phrase οὐαί, so common in Enoch, especially in cc. 94 to 100, and in the Gospels and Apocalypse, occurs in the epistles only here and in 1 Corinthians 9:16. The woe is grounded on the fate which awaits those who walk in the steps of Cain, Balaam and Korah. In 2 Peter Balaam is the only one referred to of the three leaders of wickedness here named by Jude. Cain, with Philo, is the type of selfishness ([791]. 1 p. 206), πᾶς φίλαυτος ἐπίκλησιν Καὶν εὕρηκεν (quoted by Schneckenb. p. 221); he is named as a type of jealous hate in 1 John 3:2; 1 John 3:12. ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους. οὐ καθὼς Καὶν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ · καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτὸν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια, of unbelief in Hebrews 11:4, πίστει πλείονα θυσίαν Ἄβελ παρὰ Καὶν προσήνεγκεν τῷ Θεῷ, cf. Philo, De Agric. 1 M. 300 f., and Targ. Jer. on Genesis 4:7, cited by Schneckenburger, in which Cain is represented as saying “non est judicium, nec judex, nec est aliud saeculum, nee dabitur merces bona justis, nec ultio sumetur de improbis,” etc. There seems no reason why we should not regard Cain here as symbolising the absence both of faith and of love, cf. 1 John 3:23. Euthym. Zig. gives an allegorical explanation, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀδελφοκτόνοι εἰσί, διʼ ὧν διδάσκουσι τὰς τῶν ἀπατωμένων ψυχὰς ἀποκτείνοντες. Cain and Korah are said to have been objects of special reverence with a section of the Ophite heresy, which appears to have been a development of the Nicolaitans (Epiphan. Pan. i. 3, 37, 1, οἱ Ὀφῖται τὰς προφάσεις εἰλήφασιν ἀπὸ τῆς Νικολάου καὶ Γνωστικῶν καὶ τῶν πρὸ τούτων αἱρέσεων). They held that the Creator was evil, that the serpent represented the divine Wisdom, that Cain and his successors were champions of right (Epiphan. ib. 38, 1, οἱ Καιανοί φασι τὸν Καὶν ἐκ τῆς ἰσχυροτέρας Δυνάμεως ὑπάρχειν καὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν αὐθεντίας, and boast themselves to be of kin to Cain, καὶ τῶν Σοδομιτῶν καὶ Ἠσαῦ καὶ Κορέ, see too Iren. i. 51, Clem. Str. vii. § 108.)

[791] Codex Ruber (sæc. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives its name from the colour of the ink.

τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν. Every word in this clause is open to question. The passive of ἐκχέω, to “pour out,” is used to express either the onward sweeping movement of a great crowd, or the surrender to an overpowering motive on the part of an individual = effusi sunt, [792] as in Sir 37:29, μὴ ἐκχυθῇς ἐπʼ ἐδεσμάτων, Test. Reub. 1, πορνεία ἐν ᾖ ἐξεχύθην, Clem. Al. Str. ii. p. 491, εἰς ἡδονήν, τράγων δικήν, ἐκχυθέντες καθηδυπαθοῦσιν, Plut. V. Ant. 21, εἰς τὸν ἡδυπαθῆ καὶ ἀκόλαστον βίον ἐκκεχυμένος. Such an interpretation seems not quite consistent with μισθοῦ, which implies cool self-interest. That covetousness, αἰσχροκέρδεια, was a common motive with false teachers is often implied or asserted by St. Paul and St. Peter in the passages quoted below: and this, we know, was the case with Balaam; but would it be correct to say either of him or of his followers, here condemned by St. Jude, that they ran greedily into (or “in”) error for reward? Perhaps we should understand it rather of a headstrong will breaking down all obstacles, refusing to listen to reason or expostulation, as Balaam holds to his purpose in spite of the divine opposition manifested in such diverse ways. Then comes the difficulty, how are we to understand the dative πλάνῃ, and what is the reference in the word? Should we take πλάνῃ as equivalent to εἰς πλάνην (Winer, p. 268)? This is the interpretation given by Lucifer p. 219, “vae illis quoniam in seductionem B. mercede effusi sunt,” but it is a rare use of the dative, and it seems more natural to explain πλάνῃ by the preceding ὁδῷ (dative of the means or manner), which is used in the same collocation in 2 Peter 2:15. What then are we to understand by “they were hurried along on the line of Balaam's error”? What was his error? From Numbers 22:1-41; Numbers 25:1-3; Numbers 31:16; Nehemiah 13:2, Μωαβῖται ἐμισθώσαντο ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὸν Βαλαὰμ καταράσασθαι, Jos. Ant. iv. 6, 6, we learn that B [793] was induced by Balak's bribe to act against his own convictions and eventually to tempt Israel to fornication. This then is the error or seduction by which he leads them astray. [794] In rabbinical literature Balaam is a sort of type of false teachers (Pirke Aboth, Jude 1:19, with Taylor's n.). Some suppose the name Nicolaitan (Revelation 2:6) to be formed from the Greek equivalent to Balaam = “corrupter of the people”; see however the passages quoted from Clem. Al. in the Introduction on Early Heresies. In Revelation 2:14 we read of some in Pergamum that held the teaching of Balaam, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι. There is no hint to suggest that the innovators, of whom Jude speaks, favoured idolatry, but they may have prided themselves on their enlightenment in disregarding the rule of the Apostolic Council as to the use of meats offered to idols (cf. 1 Corinthians 8), and perhaps in burning incense in honour of the Emperor, see Ramsay, Expositor for 1904, p. 409, and July, pp. 43 60. On the other hand, Jude continually charges them with moral laxity, and we may suppose that this was combined with claims to prophetic power, and with the covetousness which is often ascribed to the false teachers of the early Church, as in 1 Thessalonians 2:3 f., where Paul asserts of his own ministry that it was οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ … οὔτε γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, οὔτε ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας, οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν, 1 Timothy 3:8-9. διακόνους μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, Titus 1:7; Titus 1:11 διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ κέρδους χάριν, 1 Peter 5:2. For the gen. μισθοῦ cf. Winer, p. 258, Plat. Rep. ix. 575 B, μισθοῦ ἐπικουροῦσιν, 1 Corinthians 7:23, τιμὴς ἠγοράσθητε.

[792] I do not think the marginal reading in the R.V., “cast themselves away,” is tenable.

[793]. Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[794] Zahn understand πλάνη in an active, not a passive sense, as the ruling principle of the πλάνος Balaam, not as the error into which others fell through his seductions. I do not think Jude discriminated between these meanings: πλάνη covers both.

On the whole I understand the passage thus: Balaam went wrong because he allowed himself to hanker after gain and so lost his communion with God. He not only went wrong himself, but he abused his great influence and his reputation as a prophet, to lead astray the Israelites by drawing them away from the holy worship of Jehovah to the impure worship of Baal Peor. So these false teachers use their prophetical gifts for purposes of self-aggrandisement, and endeavour to make their services attractive by excluding from religion all that is strenuous and difficult, and opening the door to every kind of indulgence. See the notes and comments on the parallel passages of 2 Peter in my edition of that Epistle.

τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο. For Rorah's sin see Numbers 16:1 f. and compare, for the same rebellious spirit in the Christian Church, 3 John 1:9-10 (of Diotrephes), Titus 1:10-11. εἰσὶ πολλοὶ ἀνυπότακτοι … οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, Titus 1:16; Titus 3:10-11, 1 Timothy 1:20 (among those who have made shipwreck of the faith mention is made of Hymenaeus and Alexander) οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ Σατανᾷ ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν, 1 Timothy 6:3-6; 2 Timothy 2:16-18, ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει, ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ φίλητος, οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, 2 Timothy 2:25; 2 Timothy 4:14, where the opposition of Alexander the coppersmith is noted; but especially 2 Timothy 3:1-9, which presents a close parallel to our passage, referring to a similar resistance to Moses in the case of the apocryphal Jannes and Jambres. For ἀντιλογία see Hebrews 12:3, ἀναλογίσασθε τὸν τοιαύτην ὑπομεμενηκότα ὑπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀντιλογίαν It is used as a translation of Meribah in Numbers 20:13 al. and (in relation to Korah) in Protev. Jac. 9. μνήσθητι ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῖς Δαθάν, Κωρέ, καὶ Ἀβειράμ, πῶς ἐδιχάσθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατέπιεν αὐτοὺς διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν αὐτῶν.

Rampf draws attention to the climax contained in these examples. The sin of Cain is marked by the words ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδῷ, that of Balaam the gentile prophet by ἐξεχύθησαν πλάνῃ, that of the Levite Korah by ἀπώλοντο ἀντιλογίᾳ.