Act 4:29, Gal 1:10, Col 4:12, Tit 1:1, 2Pe 1:11, Jude 1 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 29. Behold their threatenings . So look upon them as to grant us deliverance. They did not purpose to abandon their undertaking; they resolved to persevere; and they expected that this purpose would involve them in danger. With this purpose they implored the protection of God; they asked that he would not suffer them to be deterred from speaking boldly; and they sought that constant additional proof might be granted of the presence and power of God to confirm the truth of their message. And grant , etc. This is an instance of heroic boldness, and a determination to persevere in doing their duty to God. When we are assailed by those ill power, when we are persecuted and in danger, we should commit our way unto God, and seek his aid, that we may not be deterred from the path of duty. (a) "boldness"

Acts 4:29

Verse 29. Behold their threatenings. So look upon them as to grant us deliverance. They did not purpose to abandon their undertaking; they resolved to persevere; and they expected that this purpose would involve them in danger. With this purpose they implored the protection of God; they asked that he would not suffer them to be deterred from speaking boldly; and they sought that constant additional proof might be granted of the presence and power of God to confirm the truth of their message.

And grant, etc. This is an instance of heroic boldness, and a determination to persevere in doing their duty to God. When we are assailed by those ill power, when we are persecuted and in danger, we should commit our way unto God, and seek his aid, that we may not be deterred from the path of duty.

(a) "boldness" Acts 4:13,21, 14:3, 28:31, Eph 6:19

Galatians 1:10

Verse 10. For do I now persuade men, or God? The word "now" αρτι is used here, evidently, to express a contrast between his present and his former purpose of life. Before his conversion to Christianity, he impliedly admits, that it was his object to conciliate the favour of men; that he derived his authority from them, Acts 9:1,2; that he endeavoured to act so as to please them and gain their good esteem. But now he says, this was not his object. He had a higher aim. It was to please God, and to conciliate his favour. The object of this verse is obscure; but it seems to me to be connected with what follows, and to be designed to introduce that by showing that he had not now received his commission from men, but had received it from God. Perhaps there may be an allusion to an implied allegation in regard to him. It may have been alleged, (see Notes on the previous verses,) that even he had changed his mind, and was now himself an observer of the laws of Moses. To this perhaps he replies, by this question, that such conduct would not have been inconsistent, in his view, when it was his main purpose to please men, and when he derived his commission from them; but that now he had a higher aim. His purpose was to please God; and he was not aiming in any way to gratify men. The word which is rendered "persuade" here, πειθω, has been very variously interpreted. Tindal renders it, "Seek now the favour of men or of God?" Doddridge, "Do I now solicit the favour of men or of God ?" This also is the interpretation of Grotius, Hammond, Elsner, Koppe, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc., and is undoubtedly the true explanation. The word properly means to persuade, or to convince, Acts 18:4; Acts 28:23; 2Cor 5:11. But it also means, to bring over to kind feelings, to conciliate, to pacify, to quiet. Sept., 1Sam 24:8 2 Mac. iv. 25; Acts 12:20, 1Jn 3:19. By the question here, Paul means to say, that his great object was now to please God. He desired his favour rather than the favour of man. He acted with reference to his will. He derived his authority from him, and not from the sanhedrim or any earthly council. And the purpose of all this is to say, that he had not received his commission to preach from man, but had received it directly from God.

Or do I seek to please men? It is not my aim or purpose to please men, and to conciliate their favour. Comp. 1Thes 2:4.

For if I yet pleased men. If I made it my aim to please men; if this was the regulating principle of my conduct. The word "yet" here ετι, has reference to his former purpose. It implies that this had once been his aim. But he says, if he had pursued that purpose to please men, if this had continued to be the aim of his life, he would not now have been a servant of Christ. He had been constrained to abandon that purpose, in order that he might be a servant of Christ; and the sentiment is, that in order that a man may become a Christian, it is necessary for him to abandon the purpose of pleasing men as the rule of his life. It may be implied also, that if in fact a man makes it his aim to please men, or if this is the purpose for which he lives and acts, and if he shapes his conduct with reference to that, he cannot be a Christian or a servant of Christ. A Christian must act from higher motives than those, and he who aims supremely at the favour of his fellow-men has full evidence that he is not a Christian. A friend of Christ must do his duty, and must regulate his conduct by the will of God, whether men are pleased with it or not. And it may be further implied, that the life and deportment of a sincere Christian will not please men. It is not that which they love. A holy, humble, spiritual life they do not love. It is true, indeed, that their consciences tell them that such a life is right; that they are often constrained to speak well of the life of Christians, and to commend it; it is true that they are constrained to respect a man who is a sincere Christian, and that they often repose confidence in such a man; and it is true also that they often speak with respect of them when they are dead; but the life of an humble, devoted, and zealous Christian they do not love. It is contrary to their views of life. And especially if a Christian so lives and acts as to reprove them either by his words or by his life; or if a Christian makes his religion so prominent as to interfere with their pursuits or pleasures, they do not love it. It follows from this,

(1.) that a Christian is not to expect to please men. He must not be disappointed, therefore, if he does not. His Master did not please the world; and it is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master.

(2.) A professing Christian, and especially a minister, should be alarmed when the world flatters and caresses him. He should fear either

(a) that he is not living as he ought to, and that sinners love him because he is so much like them, and keeps them in countenance; or

(b) that they mean to make him betray his religion and become conformed to them. It is a great point gained for the gay world, when it can, by its caresses and attentions, get a Christian to forsake a prayer-meeting for a party, or surrender his deep spirituality to engage in some political project. "Woe unto you," said the Redeemer, "when all men speak well of you," Lk 6:26.

(3.) One of the main differences between Christians and the world is, that others aim to please men; the Christian aims to please God. And this is a great difference.

(4.) It follows that if men would become Christians, they must cease to make it their object to please men. They must be willing to be met with contempt and a frown; they must be willing to be persecuted and despised; they must be willing to lay aside all hope of the praise and the flattery of men, and be content with an honest effort to please God.

(5.) True Christians must differ from the world. Their aims, feelings, purposes must be unlike the world. They are to be a peculiar people; and they should be willing to be esteemed such. It does not follow, however, that a true Christian should not desire the good esteem of the world, or that he should be indifferent to an honourable reputation, (1Timm 3:7;) nor does it follow that a consistent Christian will not often command the respect of the world. In times of trial, the world will repose confidence in Christians; when any work of benevolence is to be done, the world will instinctively look to Christians; and notwithstanding, sinners will not love religion, yet they will secretly feel assured that some of the brightest ornaments of society are Christians, and that they have a claim to the confidence and esteem of their fellow-men.

The servant of Christ. A Christian.

Colossians 4:12

Verse 12. Epaphras. Col 1:7.

Always labouring fervently for you in prayers. Marg., "or, striving." Gr., agonizing. The word denotes the intense desire which he had for their salvation; his fervent, earnest pleading for their welfare.

That ye may stand perfect and complete. Marg., as in Greek, filled. The desire was, that they might maintain their Christian principles unadulterated by the nature of philosophy and error, and completely perform the will of God in every respect. This is the expression of a pious wish in regard to them, without any affirmation that any had been absolutely perfect, or that they would be perfect in this world. It is, however, a command of God that we should be perfect, (see Mt 5:48;) and it is the highest wish of benevolence in reference to any one, that he may be complete in moral character, and may do all the will of God. 2Cor 13:9.

(1) "labouring" "serving" (e) "fervently" Jas 5:16 (f) "stand perfect" Mt 5:48 (2) "complete" "filled affairs"

Titus 1:1

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS.

INTRODUCTION

I. THE HISTORY OF TITUS.

OF Titus nothing more is certainly known than what we find in the epistles of Paul. It is somewhat remarkable that there is no mention of him in the Acts of the Apostles; nor does his name occur in the New Testament anywhere except in the writings of the apostle Paul. From his incidental allusions to him, we learn the following particulars respecting him.

(1.) He was by birth a Gentile. In Gal 2:3, he is called a Greek, and it is certain from that passage that he had not been circumcised; and the probability is, that up to the time of his conversion, he had lived as other Gentiles, and had not been converted to the Jewish faith. His father and mother were, doubtless, both Greeks, and thus he was distinguished from Timothy, whose mother was a, Jewess, but whose father was a Greek, Acts 16:3. Comp. Gal 2:3. If Titus had been proselyted to the Jewish faith, it is to be presumed that he would have been circumcised.

(2.) He had been converted to Christianity by the instrumentality of Paul himself. This is clear from the Tit 1:4, "To Titus, mine own son after the common faith." 1Timm 1:2. This is language which the apostle would not have used of one who had been converted by the instrumentality of another. But where he lived, and when or how he was converted, is wholly unknown. As to the time when he was converted, it is known only that this occurred before the fourteenth year after the conversion of Paul; for at that time Titus, a Christian, was with Paul at Jerusalem, Gal 2:1. As to the place where he lived, there seems some reason to suppose that it was in some part of Asia Minor--for the Greeks abounded there; Paul laboured much there; and there were numerous converts made there to the Christian faith, Still this is not by any means certain.

(3.) Titus went with Paul to Jerusalem when he was deputed by the church at Antioch with Barnabas, to lay certain questions before the apostles and elders there in reference to the converts from the Gentiles, Acts 15. Comp. Gal 2:1. It is not known why he took Titus with him on that occasion, and the reasons can be only conjectural. Gal 2:1. It is possible that he was taken with him to Jerusalem because his was a case in point in regard to the question which was to come before the apostles and elders there. It is not improbable, from an expression which Paul uses in describing his visit there-- "neither was Titus compelled to be circumcised"--that the case came up for discussion, and that strenuous efforts were made by the Judaizing portion there, (comp. Gal 2:4,) to have him circumcised. Paul and Barnabas, however, so managed the cause, that the principle was settled that it was not necessary that converts from the heathen should be circumcised, Acts 15:19,20.

(4.) After the council at Jerusalem, it seems probable that Titus returned with Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by Silas and Judas, Acts 15:22, and that afterwards he attended the apostle for a considerable time in his travels and labours. This appears from a remark in 2Cor 8:23: "Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you." From this it would seem, that he had been with Paul; that he was as yet not well known; and that the fact that he had been seen with him had led to inquiry who he was, and what was the office which he sustained, That he was also a companion of Paul, and quite essential to his comfort in his work, is apparent from the following allusions to him in the same epistle--2Cor 7:6-- "God, that comforteth those who are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus;" 2Cor 2:13, "I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother;"2Cor 7:13, "Yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus." Comp. 2Ti 4:10 2Co 12:18.

(5.) There is reason to believe that Titus spent some time with the apostle in Ephesus; for the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written at Ephesus, and was sent by the hand of Titus. Intro. to 1 Cor. % 3, 6. It is to be presumed, also, that he would, on such an occasion, send some one with the epistle in whom he had entire confidence, and who had been so long with him as to become familiar with his views. For Titus, on this occasion, was sent not only to bear the epistle, but to endeavour to heal the divisions and disorders there, and to complete a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, which the apostle had himself commenced. Comp. 2Cor 2:13; 2Cor 7:6; 2Cor 8:6. After this he met Paul in Macedonia, (2Cor 7:5,6;) but whether he was with him when he went with the collection to Jerusalem, and during his imprisonment in Caesarea, or on his voyage to Rome, we have no information.

(6.) We next hear of him as being left by the apostle in the island of Crete, that he might "set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city," Tit 1:5. This is supposed to have occurred about the year 62, and after the first imprisonment of the apostle at Rome. It is evidently implied, that the apostle had been himself there with him, and that he had undertaken to accomplish some important object there, but that something had prevented his completing it, and that he had left Titus to finish it. This was clearly a temporary arrangement, for there is no evidence that it was designed that Titus should be a permanent "bishop" of Crete, or that he remained there long. That he did not design that he should be a permanent bishop of that island, is clear from Tit 3:12, where the apostle directs him, when he should send Artemas to take his place, to come to him to Nicopolis. If Titus were a prelatical bishop, the apostle would not in this summary manner have superseded him, or removed him from his diocese.

(7.) He was with Paul in Rome during his second imprisonment there. He did not, however, remain with him until his trial, but left him and went into Dalmatia, 2Ti 4:10. For the probable reason why he had gone there, 2Ti 4:10. What became of him afterward, we are not informed. The tradition is, that he returned to Crete, and preached the gospel there and in the neighbouring islands, and died at the age of 94. But this tradition depends on no certain evidence.

II.--THE ISLAND OF CRETE.

As Paul Tit 1:5 says that he had left Titus in Crete to perform an important service there, and as the instructions in this epistle doubtless had some peculiar applicability to the state of things existing there, it is of importance, in order to a correct understanding of the epistle, to have some knowledge of that island, and of the circumstances in which the gospel was introduced there.

The island of Crete, now Candia, is one of the largest islands in the Mediterranean, at the south of all the Cyclades. Its name is said by some to have been derived from the Curetes, who are supposed to have been its first inhabitants; by others, from, the nymph Crete, daughter of Hesperus; and by others, from Cres, a son of Jupiter and the nymph Idaea. The ancient authors in general say that Crete was originally peopled from Palestine. According to Bochart, (Lib. 5. c. 15,) that part of Palestine which lies by the Mediterranean was called by the Arabs Keritha, and by Syrians Creth; and the Hebrews called the inhabitants Crethi, or Crethim, which the seventy have rendered κρητας--Cretans, Eze 25:16, Zeph 2:5. It would be easy to pass from Palestine to the island of Crete. Sir Isaac Newton, also, is of opinion that Crete was peopled from Palestine. He says, "Many of the Phoenicians and Syrians, in the year before Christ 1045, fled from Zidon, and from king David, into Asia Minor, Crete, Greece, and Libya, and introduced letters, music, poetry, the Octaeteris, metals and their fabrication, and other arts, sciences, and customs of the Phoenicians. Along with these Phoenicians came a sort of men skilled in religious mysteries, arts, and sciences of Phoenicia, and settled in several places, under the name of Curetes, Idaei, Dactyli," etc. According to Pliny, the extent of Crete from east to west is about two hundred and seventy miles, but its breadth nowhere exceeds fifty miles. The early inhabitants are generally supposed to be the Eteocretes of Homer; but their origin is unknown. Minos, who had expelled his brother Sarpedon from the throne, first gave laws to the Cretans, and, having conquered the pirates who infested the AEgean Sea, established a powerful navy. In the Trojan war, Idomeneus, sovereign of Crete, led its forces to war in eighty vessels--a number A little inferior to those commanded by Agamemnon himself. At this period, the island appears to have been inhabited by a mixed population of Greeks and barbarians. After the Trojan war, the principal cities formed themselves into several republics, for the most part independent, while some of them were connected with federal ties. The Cretan code of laws was supposed by many to have furnished Lycurgus with the model of his most salutary regulations. It was founded on the just basis of liberty and an equality of rights, and its great aim was to promote social harmony and peace, by enforcing temperance and frugality. In regard to this code, see Anthon's Class. Dic., Art. Greta. In the time of Polybius, (B. C. 203,) the Cretans had much degenerated from their ancient character; for he charges them repeatedly with the grossest immorality, and the basest vices, Polyb. 4, 47, 53; Id. 6, 46. We know, also, with what severity they are reproved by Paul, in the words of Epimenides. Tit 1:12. Crete was subdued by the Romans, and became a part of a Roman province. The interior of the island is very hilly and woody, and intersected with fertile valleys. Mount Ida, in the centre of the island, is the principal mountain, and surpasses all the others in elevation. The island contains no lakes, and its rivers are mostly mountain torrents, which are dry during the summer season. The valleys, or sloping plains, in the island are represented as very fertile. The greater portion of the land is not cultivated; but it might produce sugar-cane, excellent wine, and the best kind of fruit. It has a delightful climate, and is remarkably healthful. The ancients asserted, that this delightful island, the birth-place of Jupiter, was freed, by the indulgence of the gods, from every noxious animal. No quadrupeds of a ferocious character belong to it. The wild goat is the only inhabitant of the forest and the lofty mountains, and sheep overspread the plains, and graze undisturbed by ravenous enemies. The island now is under Turkish rule, and is divided into three pachaliks; but the inhabitants are mostly Greeks, who are kept in a state of great depression. The native Candians are of the Greek church, and are allowed the free exercise of their religion. The island is divided into twelve bishoprics, the bishop of one of which assumes the title of archbishop, and is appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople. The situation of this island for commerce can scarcely be surpassed. It is at an almost equal distance from Asia, Europe, and Africa, and might be made the emporium for the manufactures and agricultural productions of each; but, from the oppressive nature of the government, the indolence of the Turks, and the degraded state of the Greeks, those advantages are not improved, and its condition partakes of that of the general condition of the Turkish empire.

This island was formerly famous for its hundred cities. It is distinguished in the ancient fabulous legends for the arrival there of Europa, on a bull, from Phoenicia; for the laws of Minos; for the labyrinth, the work of Daedalus; and, above all, as the place where Jupiter was born and was buried. According to the fables of mythology, he was born in a cavern near Lyctus, or Cnosus; was rocked in a golden cradle; was fed with honey, and with the milk of the goat Amalthea, while the Curetes danced around him, clashing their arms, to prevent his cries from being heard by Saturn. He became, according to the legend, the king of Crete, and was buried on the island. See Anthon, Class. Dic., Art. Jupiter.

III.---THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL INTO CRETE.

WE have no certain information in regard to the time when the gospel was first preached in Crete, nor by whom it was done. There are some circumstances mentioned, however, which furnish all the light which we need on this point, in order to an understanding of the epistle before us. Among the persons who were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and who were converted there, Cretans are mentioned, Acts 2:11; and it is highly probable that, when they returned to their homes, they made the gospel known to their countrymen. Yet history is wholly silent as to the method by which it was done, and as to the result on the minds of the inhabitants. As no visit of any of the apostles to that island is mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, it may be presumed that the gospel there had not produced any very marked success; and the early history of Christianity there is to us unknown. It is clear from the epistle before us, Tit 1:5, that the apostle Paul was there on some occasion; and that the gospel, either when he was there, or before, was attended with success. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city." Here it is manifest that Paul had been there with Titus; that he had commenced some arrangements which he had not been able himself to complete; and that the gospel had had an effect extensively on the island, since he was to ordain elders "in every city."

It is not certainly known, however, when Paul was there. There is no mention in the Acts of the Apostles of his having been there, except when he was on his way to Rome, (Acts 27:7,8;) and this was in such circumstances as to preclude the supposition that that was the time referred to in this epistle; for

(1.) Titus was not then with him;

(2.) there is no reason to suppose that he remained there long enough to preach the gospel to any extent, or to establish churches. He was sailing to Rome as a prisoner, and there is no probability that he would be permitted to go at large and preach for any considerable time. There is, therefore, a moral certainty that it must have been on some other occasion. "It is striking," says Neander, (History of the Planting of the Christian Church, vol. 1, pp. 400, 401,) "that while Luke in the Acts reports so fully and circumstantially the occurrences of the apostle's last voyage to Rome, and mentions his stay in Crete, he says not a word (contrary to his usual practice in such cases) of the friendly reception given to him by the Christians there, or even of his meeting them at all. Hence we may conclude that no Christian churches existed in that island, though that transient visit would naturally give rise to the intention of planting the gospel there, which he probably fulfilled soon after he was set at liberty, when he came into these parts." There is reason to believe that Paul, after his first imprisonment at Rome, was released, and again visited Asia Minor and Macedonia. See Intro. to 2 Timothy. On this journey, it is not improbable that he may have visited Crete, having, as Neander supposes, had his attention called to this island as a desirable place for preaching the gospel, when on his way to Rome. "If we may be allowed to suppose;" says Dr. Paley (Hor. Paul.,) "that St. Paul, after his liberation at Rome, sailed into Asia, taking Crete in his way; that from Asia, and from Ephesus, the capital of that country, he proceeded into Macedonia, and, crossing the peninsula in his progress, came into the neighbourhood of Nicopolis, we have a route which falls in with everything. It executes the intention expressed by the apostle of visiting Colosse and Philippi, as soon as he should be set at liberty at Rome. It allows him to leave "Titus at Crete," and "Timothy at Ephesus, as he went into Macedonia," and to write to both, not long after, from the peninsula of Greece, and probably from the neighbourhood of Nicopolis, thus bringing together the dates of these two letters," (1 Tim. and Titus,) "and thereby accounting for that affinity between them, both in subject and language, which our remarks have pointed out. I confess that the journey which we have thus traced out for St. Paul is, in a great measure, hypothetic; but it should be observed that it is a species of consistency which seldom belongs to falsehood, to admit of an hypothesis which includes a great number of remote and independent circumstances without contradiction." See Neander, History of the Planting of the Churches, i. 401. Comp., however, Intro. to 1 Tim., % 2.

Why Paul left Crete without completing the work which was to be done, and especially without ordaining the elders himself, is not certainly known. There is evidently a striking resemblance between the circumstances which induced him to leave Titus there, and those which existed at Ephesus when he left Timothy there to complete an important work, 1Timm 1:3,4. We know that Paul was driven away from Ephesus before he had finished the work there which he had purposed to accomplish, (Acts 19, 20:1;) and it is not at all improbable that some such disturbance took place in Crete. Comp. Koppe, Proleg. p. 194. When he thus left, he committed to Titus the work which he had designed to accomplish, with instructions to finish it as soon as possible, and then to come to him at Nicopolis, Tit 3:12.

IV.---THE PLACE, TIME, AND OCCASION OF WRITING THE EPISTLE.

THERE has been much diversity of opinion as to the time and place of writing this epistle.

In regard to the place, there can be little doubt that it was at a Nicopolis; for the apostle, in Tit 3:12, directs Titus to come to him at that place. But it is not easy to determine what Nicopolis is meant, for there were many cities of that name. The person who affixed the subscription at the end of the epistle, affirms that it was "Nicopolis of Macedonia;" but, as has been frequently remarked in these Notes, these subscriptions are of no authority. The name Nicopolis (meaning, properly, a city of victory νικη and πολις) was given to several places. There was a city of this name in Thrace, on the river Nessus, now called Nikopi. There was also a city of the same name in Epirus, two in Moesia, another in Armenia, another in Cilicia, and another in Egypt, in the vicinity of Alexandria. It is by no means easy to ascertain which of these cities is meant, though, as Paul was accustomed to travel in Greece and Asia Minor, there seems to be a probability that one of those cities is intended. The only way of determining this with any degree of probability, is, to ascertain what city was best known by that name at the time when the epistle was written, or what city one would be likely to go to, if he were directed to go to Nicopolis, without any further specification-as if one were directed to go to Philadelphia, London, or Rome. In such a case, he would go to the principal city of that name, though there might be many other smaller places of that name also. But even this would not be absolutely certain, for Paul may have specified to Titus the place where he expected to go before he left him, so that he would be in no danger of doubt where the place was. But if we were to allow this consideration to influence us in regard to the place, there can be little doubt that the city which he meant was Nicopolis in Epirus; and the common opinion has been, that the apostle alludes to this city. This Nicopolis was situated in Epirus, in Greece, north-west of Corinth and Athens, on the Ambracian gulf, and near its mouth. On the same gulf, and directly opposite to Nicopolis, is Actium, the place where Augustus achieved a signal victory over Mark Antony; and the city of Nicopolis he built in honour of that victory. Augustus was anxious to raise this city to the highest rank among the cities of Greece, and caused games to be celebrated there, with great pomp, every few years. Having afterwards fallen into decay, the city was restored by the emperor Julian. Modern travellers describe the remains of Nicopolis as very extensive: the site which they now occupy is called Prevesa Vecchia. See Anthon's Class Dic. It should be said, however, that there is no absolute certainty about the place where the epistle was written. Macknight and Benson suppose it was at Colosse; Lardner supposes it was in or near Macedonia; Hug, at Ephesus.

If the epistle were written from the Nicopolis referred to, then it was probably after Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. If so, it was written about the year 63 or 64. But there is great diversity of opinion as to the time. Lardner and Hug place it in the year 56. It is of no material importance to be able to determine the exact time. The occasion on which it was written is specified by the apostle himself, with such clearness, that there can be no doubt on that point. Paul had left Titus in Crete, to "set in order the things which were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city," (Tit 1:5;) and as he had himself, perhaps, been called to leave suddenly, it was important that Titus should have more full instructions than he had been able to give him on various points of duty; or, at any rate, that he should have permanent instructions to which he could refer. The epistle is occupied, therefore, mainly with such counsels as were appropriate to a minister of the gospel engaged in the duties which Titus was left to discharge. The principal difficulties which it was apprehended Titus would meet with in the performance of his duties there, and which in fact made his labours there desirable, arose from two sources

(1) the character of the Cretans themselves; and

(2) the influence of Judaizing teachers.

(1.) The character of the Cretans themselves was such as to demand the vigilance and care of Titus. They were a people characterized for insincerity, falsehood, and gross living, Tit 1:12. There was great danger, therefore, that their religion would be hollow and insincere, and great need of caution lest they should be corrupted from the simplicity and purity required in the gospel, Tit 1:13.

(2.) The influence of Judaizing teachers was to be guarded against. It is evident from Acts 2:11 that there were Jews residing there; and it is probable that it was by those who had gone from that island to Jerusalem to attend the feast of the Pentecost, and who had been converted on that occasion, that the gospel was first introduced there. From this epistle, also, it is clear that one of the great dangers to piety in the churches of Crete, arose from the efforts of such teachers, and from the plausible arguments which they would use in favour of the Mosaic law. See Tit 1:10,14-16, 3:9. To counteract the effect of their teaching, it was necessary to have ministers of the gospel appointed in every important place, who should be qualified for their work. To make these arrangements, was the great design for which Titus was left there; and to give him full information as to the kind of ministers which was needed, this epistle was written.

There is a very striking resemblance between this epistle and the first epistle to Timothy. See Paley's Horae Paulinae. "Both letters were addressed to persons left by the writer to preside in their respective churches during his absence. Both letters are principally occupied in describing the qualifications to be sought for in those whom they should appoint to offices in the church; and the ingredients of this description are, in both letters, nearly the same. Timothy and Titus, likewise, are cautioned against the same prevailing corruptions, and, in particular, against the same misdirection of their cares and studies." Paley. This similarity is found, not only in the general structure of the epistles, but also in particular phrases and expressions. Comp. 1Timm 1:2,3, with Tit 1:4,5 1Timm 1:4 with Tit 1:14, 3:9; 1Timm 4:12, with Tit 2:7,15; and 1Timm 3:2-4, with Tit 1:6-8.

It is evident, from this, that the epistles were written by the same person, and to those who were in substantially the same circumstances. They are incidental proofs that they are genuine, and were written by the person, and to the persons, whose names appear, and on the occasions which are said in the epistle to have existed. On the subjects in this introduction, the reader may consult Macknight's Introduction to the Epistle; Michaelis's Introduction; Benson, Koppe, and especially Paley's Horae Paulinae --a work which will never be consulted without profit.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS.

CHAPTER I.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

THIS chapter embraces the following points:--

1. The usual inscription and salutation, Tit 1:1-4. In this Paul declares himself to be the author of the epistle, and asserts in the strongest manner his claims to the apostleship. He alludes to the great cause in which, as an apostle, he was engaged--as acting under the eternal plan of God for the salvation of the elect, and appointed to communicate the glorious truths of that system which had been now revealed to mankind. The object of this seems to be to impress the mind of Titus with his right to give him instruction.

2. A statement of the object for which Titus had been left in Crete, and the general character of the work which he was to perform there, Tit 1:5.

3. The qualifications of those who were to be ordained to the ministry, Tit 1:6-9. The characteristics laid down are substantially the same as in 1Timm 3.

4. Reasons for great caution and prudence in thus appointing elders over the churches, Tit 1:10-13. Those reasons arose from the character of the Cretans. There were many deceivers there; and the character of the Cretans was such that there was great danger that they who professed to be Christians would be hypocritical, and if put into the eldership that they would do great injury to the cause.

5. A solemn charge to Titus to rebuke them faithfully for their prevailing and characteristic vices, and to avoid giving any countenance to that for which they were so much distinguished, Tit 1:13-16.

Verse 1. Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ. Rom 1:1. Comp. 1Cor 9:1, seq.

According to the faith of God's elect. Comp. Rom 8:33; Eph 1:4; 2Ti 2:10. The meaning of the word rendered here, "according to" κατα--is, probably, with reference to; that is, he was appointed to be an apostle with respect to the faith of those whom God had chosen, or, in order that they might be led to believe the gospel. God had chosen them to salvation but he intended that it should be in connection with their believing; and, in order to that, he had appointed Paul to be an apostle that he might go and make known to them the gospel. It is the purpose of God to save his people, but he does not mean to save them as infidels, or unbelievers. He intends that they shall be believers first--and hence he sends his ministers that they may become such.

And the acknowledging of the truth. In order to secure the acknowledgment or recognition of the truth. The object of the apostleship, as it is of the ministry in general, is to secure the proper acknowledgment of the truth among men.

Which is after godliness. Which tends to promote piety towards God. On the word rendered godliness, 1Timm 2:2; 1Timm 3:16.--The truth, the acknowledgment of which Paul was appointed to secure, was not scientific, historical, or political truth: it was that of religion--that which was adapted to lead men to a holy life, and to prepare them for a holy heaven.

(a) "acknowledging" 2Ti 2:25 (b) "which is" 1Timm 6:3

2 Peter 1:11

Verse 11. For so an entrance. In this manner you shall be admitted into the kingdom of God.

Shall be ministered unto you. The same Greek word is here used which occurs in 2Pet 1:5, and which is there rendered add. 2Pet 1:5. There was not improbably in the mind of the apostle a recollection of that word; and the sense may be, that "if they would lead on the virtues and graces referred to in their beautiful order, those graces would attend them in a radiant train to the mansions of immortal glory and blessedness." See Doddridge in loc.

Abundantly. Gr., richly. That is, the most ample entrance would be furnished; there would be no doubt about their admission there. The gates of glory would be thrown wide open, and they, adorned with all the bright train of graces, would be admitted there.

Into the everlasting kingdom, etc. Heaven. It is here called everlasting, not because the Lord Jesus shall preside over it as the Mediator, (comp. 1Cor 14:24,) but because, in the form which shall be established when "he shall have given it up to the Father," it will endure for ever. The empire of God which the Redeemer shall set up over the souls of his people shall endure to all eternity. The object of the plan of redemption was to secure their allegiance to God, and that will never terminate.

Jude 1

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.

INTRODUCTION.

I. THE AUTHOR OF THIS EPISTLE. LITTLE is known of the author of this brief epistle. He styles himself (Jude 1:1) "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James;" but there has been some difference of opinion as to what James is meant. He does not call himself an apostle, but supposes that the terms which he uses would sufficiently identify him, and would be a sufficient reason for his addressing his brethren in the manner in which he does in this epistle. There were two of the name of James among the apostles, (Lk 6:14,15) and it has been made a question of which of them he was the brother. There were also two of the name of Judas, or Jude; but there is no difficulty in determining which of them was the author of this epistle, for the other had the surname of Iscariot, and was the traitor. In the catalogue of the apostles given by Matthew Mt 10:3, the tenth place is given to an apostle who is there called "Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus;" and as this name does not occur in the list given by Luke, Lk 7:15 and as the tenth place in the catalogue is occupied by "Simon, called Zelotes," and as he afterwards mentions "Judas the brother of James," it is supposed that Lebbeus and Judas were the same persons. It was not uncommon for persons to have two or more names. Comp. Robinson's Harmony of the Gospels, 40; Bacon's Lives of Apostles, p. 447; and Michaelis, iv., 365. The title which he assumes, "brother of James," was evidently chosen because the James referred to was well-known, and because the fact that he was his brother would be a sufficient designation of himself, and of his right to address Christians in this manner. The name of the elder James, who was slain by Herod, Acts 12:2, can hardly be supposed to be referred to, as he had been dead some time when this epistle is supposed to have been written; and as that James was the brother of John, who was then living, it would have been much more natural for him to have mentioned that he was the brother of that beloved disciple. The other James-- "James the Less," or "James the Just"-- was still living; was a prominent man in Jerusalem; and was, besides, known as" the brother of the Lord Jesus;" and the fact of relationship to that James would sufficiently designate the writer. There can be little doubt, therefore, that this is the James here intended. In regard to his character and influence, see Intro. to the Epistle of James, 1. If the author of this epistle was the brother of that James, it was sufficient to refer to that fact, without mentioning that he was an apostle, in order to give to his epistle authority, and to settle its canonical character. Of Jude little is known. His name is found in the list of the apostles, but, besides that, it is but once mentioned in the Gospels. The only thing that is preserved of him in the Evangelists, is a question which he put to the Saviour, on the eve of his crucifixion. The Saviour had said, in his parting address to his disciples, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him." In regard to the meaning of this remark, Judas is said to have asked the following question: "Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?" Jn 14:21,22. To this question the Saviour gave him a kind and satisfactory answer, and that is the last that is said of him in the Gospels. Of his subsequent life we know little. In Acts 15:22, he is mentioned as surnamed "Barsabas," and as being sent with Paul and Barnabas and Silas to Antioch. Paulinus says that he preached in Lybia, and that his body remained there. Jerome affirms, that after the ascension he was sent to Edessa, to king Abgarus; and the modern Greeks say that he preached in that city, and throughout Mesopotamia, and in Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Syria, and principally in Armenia and Persia.--Calmet's Diet. Nothing certainly can be known in reference to the field of his labours, or to the place and circumstances of his death. On the question whether the Thaddeus who first preached the gospel in Syria was the same person as Jude, see Michaelis, Introduction iv., 367--371.

II---THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.

If this epistle was written by the apostle Jude, the brother of James and of our Lord, there can be no doubt of its canonical authority, and its claim to a place in the New Testament. It is true that he does not call himself art apostle, but simply mentions himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James." By this appellation, however, he has practically made it known that he was one of the apostles, for all who had a catalogue of the apostles, would know "that Judas, the brother of James," was one of them. At the same time, as the relation of James to our Lord was well understood, Gal 1:19, his authority would be recognised as soon as he was known to be the author of the epistle. It may be asked, indeed, if he was an apostle, why he did not call himself such; and why he did not seek to give authority and currency to his epistle, by adverting to the fact that he was the "Lord's brother." To the first of these questions, it may be replied, that to have called himself "Judas, the apostle," would not have designated him so certainly, as to call himself" the brother of James;" and besides, the naked title, "Judas, the apostle," was one which he might not choose to see applied to himself. After the act of the traitor, and the reproach which he had brought upon that name, it is probable that he would prefer to designate himself by some other appellation than one which had such associations connected with it. It may be added, also, that in several of his epistles Paul himself does not make use of the name apostle, Php 1:1, 1Thes 1:1, 2Thes 1:1, Phm 1:1. To the second question, it may be replied, that modesty may have kept him from applying to himself the title, the" Lord's brother." Even James never uses it of himself; and we only know that he sustained this relation from an incidental remark of the apostle Paul, Gal 1:19.

Great honour would be attached to that relationship, and it is possible that the reason why it was not referred to by James and Jude was an apprehension that it might produce jealousy, as if they claimed some special pre-eminence over their brethren. For the evidence of the canonical authority of this epistle, the reader is referred to Lardner, vol. vi., pp. 304--313, and to Michaelis, Intro. vol. iv., p. 374, seq. Michaelis, chiefly on the internal evidence, supposes that it is not an inspired production. There were indeed, at first, doubts about its being inspired, as there were respecting the epistle of James, and the second epistle of Peter, but those doubts were ultimately removed, and it was received as a canonical epistle. Clemens of Alexandria cites the epistle under Jude's name, as the production of a prophetic mind. Origen calls it a production full of heavenly grace. Eusebius says that his predecessors were divided in opinion respecting it, and that it was not ranked among the universally-acknowledged writings. It was not universally received among the Syrians, and is not found in the Peschite, the oldest Syriac version of the Scriptures. In the time of Jerome, however, it came to be ranked among the other sacred Scriptures as of Divine authority.--Hug, Introduction, 180. The principal grounds of doubt in regard to the canonical authority of the epistle, arose from the supposed fact that the author has quoted two apocryphal writings, Jud 1:9,14. The consideration of this objection will be more appropriate in the Notes on those verses, for it obviously depends much on the true interpretation of these passages. I shall, therefore, reserve what I have to say on that point to the exposition of those verses. Those who are disposed to examine it at length, may consult Hug, Intro., 183; Lardner, vi. 309-314, and Michaelis, Intro., iv., 378, seq.

III. THE QUESTION WHEN THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN, TO WHOM AND ITS DESIGN

NOTHING can be determined with entire certainty in regard to the persons to whom this epistle was written. Witsius supposed that it was addressed to Christians everywhere; Hammond, that it was addressed to Jewish Christians alone, who were scattered abroad, and that its design was to secure them against the errors of the Gnostics; Benson, that it was directed to Jewish believers, especially to those of the western dispersion; Lardner, that it was written to all, without distinction, who had embraced the gospel. The principal argument for supposing that it was addressed to Jewish converts is, that the apostle refers mainly for proof to Hebrew writings, but this might be sufficiently accounted tbr by the fact that the writer himself was of Jewish origin. The only way of determining anything on this point is from the epistle itself. The inscription is, "To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called," Jude 1:1. From this it would appear evident that he had no particular classes of Christians in his eye, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin, but that he designed the epistle for the general use of all who had embraced the Christian religion. The errors which he combats in the epistle were evidently wide-spread, and were of such a nature that it was proper to warn all Christians against them. They might, it is true, be more prevalent in some quarters than in others, but still they were so common that Christians everywhere should be put on their guard against them. The design for which Jude wrote the epistle he has himself stated, Jude 1:3. It was with reference to the "common salvation"-- the doctrines pertaining to salvation which were held by all Christians, and to show them the reasons for "contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." That faith was assailed. There were teachers of error abroad. They were insinuating and artful men--men who had crept in unawares, and who, while they professed to hold the Christian doctrine, were really undermining its faith, and spreading corruption through the church. The purpose, therefore, of the epistle is to put those to whom it was written on their guard against the corrupt teachings of these men, and to encourage them to stand up manfully for the great principles of Christian truth.

Who these errorists were, it is not easy now to determine. The leading charge against them, both by Jude and Peter, (2Pet 2:1,) is, that they denied our Lord, (Jude 1:4;) and yet it is said that they were numbered among Christians, and were found in their assemblies, 2Pet 2:13; Jude 1:12. By this denial, however, we are not to suppose that they literally and professedly denied that Jesus was the Christ, but that they held doctrines which amounted to a denial of him in fact. 2Pet 2:1. For the general characteristics of these teachers, see Intro. to 2 Pet. % 4.

At this distance of time, and with our imperfect knowledge of the characteristics of the early erroneous sects in the church, it is difficult to determine precisely who they were. It has been a common opinion, that reference is had by Peter and Jude to the sect of the Nicolaitanes; and this Opinion, Hug remarks, is "neither improbable nor incompatible with the expressions of the two apostles, so far as we have any certain knowledge concerning this sect." "The statements of the ancients, in regard to their profligacy and their detestable course of life, are so consonant with each other and with the charges of the apostles, that the two epistles may be pertinently considered as referring to them."--Introduction, % 182.

It is not possible to ascertain with certainty the time when the epistle was written. There are no marks of time in it by which that can be known, nor is there any account among the early Christian writers which determines this. Benson supposes that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a few weeks or months after the second epistle ofPeter; Mill, that it was written about A.D. 90; Dodwell and Cave, that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 71 or 72; L'Enfant and Beausobre, that it was between the year 70 and 75; Witsius and Estius, that it was in the apostle's old age; Lardner, that it was about the year 65 or 66; Michaelis, that it was before the destruction of Jerusalem; and Macknight, that it was in the latter part of the apostolic age, and not long before the death of Jude. All this, it is manifest, is mostly conjecture. There are only two things, it seems to me, in the epistle, which can be regarded as any indication of the time. One is the striking resemblance to the second epistle of Peter, referring clearly to the same kind of errors, and warning those whom he addressed against the arts of the same kind of teachers, thus showing that it was written at about the same time as that epistle; and the other is, that it seems to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, for, as Michaelis has well remarked, "As the author has mentioned (Jude 1:5-8) several well-known instances of Divine justice in punishing sinners, he would probably, if Jerusalem had been already destroyed, not have neglected to add to his other examples this most remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, especially as Christ had himself foretold it."--Intro, iv. 372. As there is reason to suppose that the second epistle of Peter was written about A.D. 64 or 65, we shall not, probably, err in supposing that this was written not far from that time.

IV.---THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THIS EPISTLE AND THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.

ONE of the most remarkable things respecting this epistle, is its resemblance to the second chapter of the second epistle of Peter--a similarity so striking as to make it quite certaio that one of these writers had seen the epistle of the other, and copied from it; or rather, perhaps, adopted the language of the other as expressing his own views. It is evident, that substantially the same class of teachers is referred to by both; that they held the same errors, and were guilty of the same corrupt and dangerous practices and that the two apostles describing them, made use of the same expressions, and employed the same arguments against them. They refer to the same facts in history, and to the same arguments from tradition; and if either of them quoted an apocryphal book, both have done it. On the resemblance, compare the following place:---Jude 1:8, with 2Pet 2:10; Jud 1:10, with 2Pet 2:12; Jude 1:16, with 2Pet 2:18; Jude 1:4 with 2Pet 1:2,3; Jude 1:7 with 2Pet 2:6; Jude 1:9 with 2Pet 2:11 The similarity between the two is so striking, both in the general structure of the argument and in the particular expressions, that it cannot have been accidental. It is not such a resemblance as would be likely to occur in two authors, if they had been writing in a wholly independent manner. In regard to this resemblance, there is but one of three ways in which it can be accounted for: either that the Holy Spirit inspired both of them to say the same thing, without the one having any knowledge of what the other said; or that they both copied from a common document, which is now lost; or that one copied from the other.

As to the first of these solutions, that the Holy Spirit inspired them both to say the same thing, it may be observed that no one can deny that this is possible, but is by no means probable. No other instance of the kind occurs in the Bible, and the supposition would not be in accordance with what seems to have been a law in inspiration, that the sacred writers were allowed to express themselves according to the bent of their own genius. 1Cor 14:32.

As to the second of these suppositions, that they both copied from a common document, which is now lost, it may be observed, that this is wholly without evidence. That such a thing was possible, there can be no doubt, but the supposition should not be adopted without necessity. If there had been such an original inspired document, it would probably have been preserved; or there would have been, in one or both of those who copied from it, some such allusion to it that it would have been possible to verify the supposition.

The remaining way of accounting for the resemblance, therefore, is to suppose that one of them had seen the epistle of the other, and adopted the same line of argument, and many of the same expressions. This will account for all the facts in the case, and can be supposed to be true without doing violence to any just view of their inspiration. A question still arises, however, whether Peter or Jude is the original writer from which the other has copied. This question it is impossible to determine with ccrtainty, and it is of little importaace. If the common opinion which is stated above be correct, that Peter wrote his epistle first, of course that determines the matter. But that is not absolutely certain, nor is there any method by which it can be determined. Hug adopts the other opinion, and supposes that Jude was the original writer. His reasons for this opinion are substantially these:

(1.) That there is little probability that Jude, in so brief an epistle as his, consisting of only twenty-five verses, would have made use of foreign aid.

(2.) That the style and phraseology of Jude is simple, unlaboured, and without ornament; while that of Peter is artificial, and wears the appearance of embellishment and amplification; that the simple language of Jude seems to have been moulded by Peter into a more elegant form, and is embellished with participles, and even with rhetorical flourishes.

(3.) That there is allusion in both epistles 2Pet 2:11, Jude 1:9 to a controversy beteen angels and fallen spirits; but that it is so alluded to by Peter, that it would not be understood without the more full statement of Jude; and that Peter evidently supposed that the letter of Jude was in the hands of those to whom he wrote, and that thus the allusion would be at once understood. It could not be supposed that every reader would be acquainted with the fact alluded to by Peter; it was not stated in the sacred books of the Jews, and it seems probable that there must have been some book to which they had access, where the information was more full. Jude, however, as the original writer, stated it more at length, and having done this, a bare allusion to it by Peter was all that was necessary. Jude states the matter definitely, and expressly mentions the dispute of Michael with the devil about the body of Moses. But the language of Peter is so general and indefinite, that we could not know what he meant unless we had Jude in our possession. See Hug's Intro., % 176. It must be admitted that these considerations have much weight, though they are not absolutely conclusive. It should be added, that whichever supposition is adopted, the fact that one has expressed substantially the same sentiments as the other, and in nearly the same language, is no reason for rejecting either, any more than the coincidence between the Gospels is a reason for concluding that only one of them can be an inspired document. There might have been good reasons why the same warnings and counsels should have proceeded from two inspired men.

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE.

(1.) THE inscription and salutation, Jude 1:1,2.

(2.) A statement of the reasons why the epistle was written, Jude 1:3,4. The author felt it to be necessary to write to them, because certain plausible errorists had crept in among them, and there was danger that their faith would be subverted.

(3.) A reference to past facts, showing that men who embraced error, and who followed corrupt and licentious practices, would be punished, Jude 1:5-7. He refers particularly to the unbelieving Hebrews whom God had delivered out of Egypt; to the apostate angels; and to the corrupt inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. The object in this is to warn them from following the examples of those who would certainly lead them to destruction.

(4.) He describes particularly the characteristics of these persons, agreeing substantially in the description with the statement of Peter, Jude 1:8-16. For these characteristics, comp. Intro. to 2 Peter, & 4. In general, they were corrupt, sensual, lewd, proud, arrogant, disorganizing, covetous, murmurers, complainers, wordy, windy, spots in their feasts of love. They had been and were professors of religion; they were professed reformers; they made great pretensions to uncommon knowledge of religious things. In the course of this description, the apostle contrasts their spirit with that of the archangel Michael, Jude 1:9, and declares that it was with reference to such a class of men that Enoch long ago uttered a solemn prophecy, Jude 1:14,15.

(5.) He calls to their remembrance the fact that it had been predicted that there would be such mockers in the last periods of the world; and the faith of true Christians, therefore, was not to be shaken, but rather confirmed by the fact of their appearance, Jude 1:17-19.

(6.) In view of these facts and dangers, the apostle addresses to them two exhortations:

(a.) to adhere steadfastlit to the truths which they had embraced, Jude 1:20,21; and

(b.) to endeavour to recall and save those who were led astray --carefully guarding themselves from the same contamination while they sought to save others, Jude 1:22,23.

(7.) The epistle closes with an appropriate ascription of praise to him who was able to keep them from falling, and to present them faultless before his throne, Jude 1:24,25.

Verse 1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ. If the view taken in the Introduction to the epistle is correct Jude sustained a near relation to the Lord Jesus, being, as James was, "the Lord's brother," Gal 1:19. The reasons why he did not advert to this fact here, as an appellation which would serve to designate him, and as showing his authority to address others in the manner in which he proposed to do in this epistle, probably were,

(1.) that the right to do this did not rest on his mere relationship to the Lord Jesus, but on the fact that he had called certain persons to be his apostles, and had authorized them to do it; and,

(2.) that a reference to this relationship, as a ground of authority, might have created jealousies among the apostles themselves. We may learn from the fact that Jude merely calls himself "the servant of the Lord Jesus," that is, a Christian,

(a.) that this is a distinction more to be desired than would be a mere natural relationship to the Saviour, and consequently

(b.) that it is a higher honour than any distinction arising from birth or family. Comp. Mt 12:46-50.

And brother of James. See Intro., & 1.

To them that are sanctified by God the Father. To those who are holy, or who are saints. Rom 1:7, Php 1:1. Though this title is general, it can hardly be doubted that he had some particular saints in his view, to wit, those who were exposed to the dangers to which he refers in the epistle. See Intro., & 3. As the epistle was probably sent to Christians residing in a certain place, it was not necessary to designate them more particularly, though it was often done. The Syriac version adds here, "To the Gentiles who are called, beloved of God the Father," etc.

And preserved in Jesus Christ. 1Pet 1:5. The meaning is, that they owed their preservation wholly to him; and if they were brought to everlasting life, it would be only by him. What the apostle here says of those to whom he wrote, is true of all Christians. They would all fall away and perish if it were not for the grace of God keeping them.

And called. Called to be saints. Rom 1:7; Eph 4:1.

(a) "Jude" Lk 6:16 (b) "are sanctified" Acts 20:32 (c) "preserved" 1Pet 1:5 (d) "called" Rom 8:30