Jude 1:8

ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι. Notwithstanding these warnings the libertines go on in similar courses.

ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μιαίνουσιν Compare Acts 2:17 (a quotation from Joel 2:28), οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ὑμῶν ἐνυπνίοις ἐνυπνιασθήσονται, of those that see visions: and so Spitta (holding that Jude copied from 2 Peter), would render it here, prefixing the article to make it correspond with the ψευδοπροφῆται and ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι of 2 Peter 2:1. Those who take the opposite view (viz. that 2 Peter was copied from Jude) will see nothing to justify the article. The word is used by Isaiah 56:10 in connexion with the words οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ εἰδότες (see Jude 1:10 below), ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι κοίτην φιλοῦντες νυστάξαι, which Delitsch explains “instead of watching and praying to see divine revelations for the benefit of the people, they are lovers of ease talkers in their sleep.

Bengel explains “Hominum mere naturalium indoles graphice admodum descripta est. Somnians multa videre, audire, etc. sibi videtur.” And so Chase “they live in an unreal world of their own inflated imaginations,” comparing the conjectural reading of Colossians 2:18, ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων. This accords with Jude 1:10 : in their delusion and their blindness they take the real for the unreal, and the unreal for the real. The verb is used both in the active and middle by Aristotle, Somm. i. 1, πότερον συμβαίνει ἀεὶ τοῖς καθεύδουσιν ἐνυπνιάζειν, ἀλλ οὐ μνημονεύουσιν; Probl. 30, 14, 2, οἱ ἐν τῷ καθεύδειν ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι ἱσταμένης τῆς διανοίας, καὶ καθʼ ὅσον ἠρεμεῖ, ὀνειρώττουσιν, cf. Artem. Oneir, i. 1. Some interpret of polluting dreams (cf. Leviticus 15); but the word ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι is evidently intended to have a larger scope, covering not merely μιαίνουσιν but ἀθετοῦσιν and βλασφημοῦσιν. We must also interpret μιαίνω here by the ἀσέλγειαν of Jude 1:4, the ἐκπορνεύσασαι and σαρκὸς ἑτέρας of Jude 1:7. This wide sense appears in Titus 1:15, τοῖς μεμιασμένοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις.

κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. On first reading one is inclined to take the words κυριότης and δόξαι simply as abstractions. The result of indulgence in degrading lusts is the loss of reverence, the inability to recognise true greatness and due degrees of honour. This would agree with the description of the libertines as sharing in the ἀντιλογία of Korah, as κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης, as γογγυσταί uttering hard speeches against God. When we examine however the use of the word κυριότης and the patristic comments, and when we consider the reference to the archangel's behaviour towards Satan, and the further explanation in Jude 1:10, where the σάρκα of Jude 1:8 is represented by ὅσα φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται, and the phrase κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν by ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, we seem to require a more pointed and definite meaning, not simply “majesty,” but “the divine majesty,” not simply “dignities,” but “the angelic orders”. Cf. 2 Peter 2:10; Ephesians 1:21 (having raised him from the dead and set him on his right hand) ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος, Colossians 1:16, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι, where Lightfoot considers that the words are intended to be taken in their widest sense, including bad and good angels, as well as earthly dignities. In our text, however, it would seem that the word should be understood as expressing the attribute of the true κύριος, cf. Didache, iv. 1 (honour him who speaks the word of God), ὡς κύριον, ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν, Herm. Sim, Jude 1:6; Jude 1:1, εἰς δούλου τρόπον οὐ κεῖται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλʼ εἰς ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην κεῖται καὶ κυριότητα. The verb ἀθετέω has God or Christ for its object in Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thessalonians 4:8, etc. We have then to consider how it can be said that the libertines (οὗτοι) “despise authority” in like manner to the above-mentioned offenders. For the former we may refer to Jude 1:4, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἀρνούμενοι, for the latter to the contempt shown by the Israelites towards the commandments of God. So the desertion of their appointed station and abode by the angels showed their disregard for the divine ordinance, and the behaviour of the men of Sodom combined with the vilest lusts an impious irreverence towards God's representatives, the angels (Genesis 19:5). Cf. Joseph. Ant. i. 11. 2, εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἦσαν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀσεβεῖς, and Test. Aser. 7, where the sin of Sodom is expressly stated to have been their behaviour towards the angels, μὴ γίνεσθε ὡς Σόδομα ἥτις ἠγνόησε τοὺς ἀγγέλους Κυρίου καὶ ἀπώλετο ἕως αἰῶνος.

δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. Cf. 2 Peter 2:10, τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες. The only other passage in the N.T. in which the plural occurs is 1 Peter 1:11, where the sense is different. Dr. Bigg compares Exodus 15:11, τίς ὅμοιός σοι ἐν θεοῖς, Κύριε; τίς ὁμοιός σοι; δεδοξασμένος ἐν ἁγίοις, θαυμαστὸς ἐν δόξαις. Clement's interpretation of this and the preceding clause is as follows: (Adumbr. 1008) “dominationem spernunt, hoc est solum dominum qui vere dominus noster est, Jesus Christus … majestatem blasphemant, hoc est angelos”. The word δόξα in the singular is used for the Shekinah, see my note on James 2:1. This suggests that Clement may be right in supposing the plural to be used for the angels, who are, as it were, separate rays of that glory. Compare Philo's use of the name λόγοι for the angels as contrasted with the divine Λόγος. In Philo, Monarch, ii. p. 18 the divine δόξα, is said to consist of the host of angels, δόξαν δὲ σὴν εἶναι νομίζω τάς σε δορυφορούσας δυνάμεις. See Test. Jude 1:25, Κύριος εὐλόγησε τὸν Λευί, ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ προσώπου ἐμέ, αἱ δυνάμεις τῆς δοξης τὸν Συμεών, also Luke 9:26, where it is said that “the Son of Man will come in His own glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels”. [790] Ewald, Hist. Isr. tr. vol. viii. p. 142, explains ἡ κυριότης of the true Deity, whom they practically deny by their dual God; αἱ δόξαι as the angels, whom they blaspheme by supposing that they had created the world in opposition to the will of the true God, whereas Michael himself submitted everything to Him. This last clause would then be an appendage to the preceding, with special reference to the case of the Sodomites (cf. John 13:20). There may also be some allusion to the teaching or practice of the libertines. If we compare the mysterious reference in 1 Corinthians 11:10, διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, which is explained by Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. 7) as spoken of the fallen angels mentioned by Jude, “propter angelos, scilicet quos legimus a Deo et caelo excidisse ob concupiscentiam feminarum,” we might suppose the βλασφημία, of which the libertines were guilty, to consist in a denial or non-recognition of the presence of good angels in their worship, or of the possibility of their own becoming κοινωνοὶ δαιμονίων; or they may have scoffed at the warnings against the assaults of the devil, or even at the very idea of “spiritual wickedness in high places”. So understood, it prepares us for the strange story of the next verse.

[790] There is much said of the glory of the angels in Asc. Isaiae, pp. 47, 49 f ad. Charles.