Featured Items Ritchie Christian Media

Question Box

Can you explain the significance of Jude v.23?

Verses 22 & 23 are the most difficult to interpret in the Epistle of Jude. It is easier to read them in the RV, which indicates three groups of people to whom a different approach is needed – "And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh". Thus we have: 1. Those who need compassion because of sincere doubt. 2. Those requiring urgent boldness if they are to be snatched from an eternity of fiery judgment. 3. Those who must be dealt with in caution lest we be contaminated by their sins. Some think the reference is to those who have been led astray by the impostors and does not regard them as unsaved persons. This would mean that the fire referred to in v.23 would have to be interpreted as figurative. There is no reason why we should suppose that the fire in v.23 is any different from the eternal fire of v.7.

The words then of Jude vv.22 & 23 contain a final message to believers in a day of apostasy, reminding them of their responsibilities, and yet giving a word of caution too. Some unsaved have sincere doubt that holds them back. Such need to be dealt with tenderly in mercy. Others are to be rescued by snatching them out of the fire. Jude possibly has in mind the illustration of Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah 3.2 who is referred to as "a brand plucked out of the fire". Finally, a third class needs to be pitied, but approached in fear. Corrupt living has possibly defiled these. Such must be spoken to with caution, "hating even the garment spotted by the flesh". What does this mean? This may refer to "the inner garment which is close to the body and is here viewed as having contracted defilement from the wearer" (A McShane, What The Bible Teaches - Jude, page 329), but the picture of the garment may again refer back to Zechariah 3 where the filthy garments of Joshua are exchanged for new garments.

Whatever Jude was actually referring to, the meaning is not hard to understand. In using every effort in pity to reach and help such persons we cannot too deeply loathe their sins.

John J Stubbs

Why was David not stoned for his adultery with Bathsheba? Would this mean that in this day of grace and (when there is the privilege of) assembly fellowship, he (David) would be able to fit into the assembly and exercise any gift that the Lord had given him? If, for example, he desired the office of an elder (1 Tim 3.1) in the Lord’s assembly, would he be accepted?

David had indeed committed adultery with Bathsheba: "Thou…hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife" (2 Sam 12.10). He had been guilty of murder by proxy; however, the charge is, "Thou (not Joab, nor the Ammonites) hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword" (2 Sam 12.9).

The law had said, "The man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife…the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Lev 20.10), and, "He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death" (Lev 24.17). We may establish from the incident recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the "woman taken in adultery" (8.3) that death would be by stoning: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned" (8.5).

When David heard Nathan’s parable concerning the two men, the one rich and the other poor, and the little ewe lamb, we are told that "David’s anger was greatly kindled against the (rich) man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die" (2 Sam 12.5). However, after David’s confession, "I have sinned against the Lord", Nathan assures David of the Lord’s forgiveness: "The Lord also hath put away thy sin", and he adds, "…thou shalt not die" (2 Sam 12.13).

Thus the sentence David had pronounced upon himself would not be executed, though he deserved to die as an adulterer and a murderer. The punishment of death would certainly not have been inflicted on the king, as being supreme in the nation, but the Lord might Himself have inflicted it.

In God’s governmental dealings with him, David had to suffer the consequences of his sins in his family until his last days upon earth, for there is always the principle of sowing and reaping (Gal 6.7).

The further question is based upon a purely hypothetical situation. David was a man of faith (a believer) when he committed these gross sins. Murder, or even culpable homicide/manslaughter, could (in the UK) lead to a lengthy period of imprisonment. The individual would certainly be put out of fellowship, albeit any such discipline is always with a view to potential restoration. However, such is the seriousness of the sins committed that, if restored, he would never be free to exercise a public gift, and certainly never be recognised as an overseer.

David E West

Subscribe

Back issues are provided here as a free resource. To support production and to receive current editions of Believer's Magazine, please subscribe...

Print Edition

Digital Edition

Copyright © 2017 John Ritchie Ltd. Home