Jude 22

“`html

An Exegetical Analysis of οὓς in Jude 22-23

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of οὓς in Jude 22-23 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 13, 2007. The initial inquiry concerned the interpretation of the three occurrences of the relative pronoun οὓς in Jude 22-23. The questioner assumed a preceding referent, specifically suggesting οὗτοι in verse 19, but also noted a teacher’s suggestion that these pronouns might introduce new groups independent of the preceding text, raising the question of whether such usage is found elsewhere in the New Testament.

The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise grammatical function and semantic scope of the pronoun οὓς in Jude 22-23. Specifically, it questions whether οὓς functions strictly as a relative pronoun requiring an explicit antecedent (such as the contentious individuals, οὗτοι, described in verse 19) or if, in conjunction with the particles μὲν and δὲ, it serves an anaphoric or demonstrative purpose, introducing distinct categories of people to whom the readers are exhorted to respond in various ways. This distinction impacts the identification of the target audience for the readers’ actions and the overall structure of Jude’s concluding exhortations.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

22 καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους,

23 οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα.

• Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
• Verse 22: Nestle 1904 reads ἐλεᾶτε (present active indicative 2nd plural of ἐλεάω), whereas SBLGNT 2010 reads ἐλεεῖτε (present active indicative 2nd plural of ἐλεέω). While both verbs mean “to have mercy” or “to pity,” ἐλεέω is the more common form in the New Testament.
• There are no other substantial lexical or grammatical differences between the two editions for these verses, beyond minor orthographic variations.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

Textual Criticism (NA28): The NA28 text, like SBLGNT, reads οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινομένους in verse 22, and οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ in verse 23. This suggests a preference for the more frequent verb ἐλεέω in the first instance, while retaining ἐλεάω for the second. The external evidence for ἐλεεῖτε in v. 22 is strong (א A B C P Ψ, majority of minuscules), while ἐλεᾶτε is also attested (0243, Family 1739). The Committee for the NA28 preferred ἐλεεῖτε in v. 22, likely viewing ἐλεᾶτε as a less common variant or an assimilation to the verb in v. 23. This variant, while minor, potentially nuances the expression of mercy, though functionally, both verbs convey the imperative to show compassion.

Lexical Notes:

• οὓς (hOUS): This is the accusative masculine plural form of the relative pronoun ὅς. In this construction with μὲν… δέ… δέ, οὓς functions anaphorically, acting as a demonstrative pronoun. It does not refer back to a specific, explicit antecedent in the immediate preceding text (such as οὗτοι in v. 19), but rather introduces distinct groups of people (implicitly “some,” “others,” “still others”) within a general population relevant to the exhortation. (BDAG, s.v. “ὅς,” 3.b; KITTEL, s.v. “ὁ, ἡ, τό” I.4.b.)
• μὲν… δέ… δέ: These are connective particles used here distributively to mark a series of contrasted or differentiated items. The construction οὓς μὲν… οὓς δὲ… οὓς δὲ translates to “some… others… still others,” highlighting distinct categories requiring different responses. (BDAG, s.v. “μέν,” 1; KITTEL, s.v. “μέν” III.)
• ἐλεᾶτε / ἐλεεῖτε (from ἐλεάω / ἐλεέω): Both verbs mean “to have pity, show mercy, be compassionate.” While ἐλεέω is more frequent in the NT, both convey the imperative to act with compassion. They are present active indicative/imperative 2nd plural forms. (BDAG, s.v. “ἐλεάω,” “ἐλεέω.”)
• διακρινομένους (from διακρίνω): This is a present passive participle, accusative masculine plural, meaning “those who are doubting,” “wavering,” “disputing,” or “contending.” It describes individuals who are internally conflicted or involved in disputes, thus requiring a specific approach of mercy. (BDAG, s.v. “διακρίνω,” 3.)
• σῴζετε (from σῴζω): Present active imperative 2nd plural, meaning “save!” or “rescue!” It expresses a direct command for urgent action. (BDAG, s.v. “σῴζω,” 1.a.β.)
• ἁρπάζοντες (from ἁρπάζω): Present active participle, nominative masculine plural, meaning “snatching,” “seizing,” or “plucking.” Although grammatically modifying the implied subject of σῴζετε (“you” who are saving), it conveys the urgency and forceful nature of the rescue from danger, specifically “from the fire.” (BDAG, s.v. “ἁρπάζω,” 2.)
• φόβῳ (from φόβος): Dative masculine singular, meaning “fear,” “reverence,” or “awe.” Here, it likely refers to the caution and reverent awe believers should exercise, particularly in the context of confronting sin and its defilement, as highlighted by the subsequent phrase “hating… the stained tunic.” (BDAG, s.v. “φόβος,” 2.b.)
• μισοῦντες (from μισέω): Present active participle, nominative masculine plural, meaning “hating” or “detesting.” It describes the attitude of the believers toward the impurity, not the person. (BDAG, s.v. “μισέω,” 1.)
• ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα (from σπιλόω and χιτών): ἐσπιλωμένον is a perfect passive participle, accusative masculine singular, meaning “stained,” “defiled,” or “polluted.” χιτῶνα is an accusative masculine singular noun, meaning “tunic” or “undergarment.” The phrase refers to a garment defiled by sinful flesh, an idiom symbolizing the profound impurity associated with corrupt lifestyles, even to the extent of detesting anything intimately connected with it. (BDAG, s.v. “σπιλόω,” “χιτών.”)

Translation Variants

The grammatical construction οὓς μὲν… οὓς δὲ… οὓς δὲ presents a clear rhetorical division, instructing the recipients of the letter to apply different pastoral approaches to three distinct groups of individuals. The initial query regarding the referent of οὓς is resolved by recognizing its anaphoric function as a demonstrative pronoun in this specific construction. It does not strictly refer back to οὗτοι (the false teachers) in verse 19, but rather introduces different categories of people who are susceptible to their influence or who exhibit various degrees of spiritual instability or sin.

The first group, διακρινομένους (those who are doubting/wavering), are to be shown mercy. This suggests individuals who are not yet fully entrenched in error but are struggling with uncertainty or internal division. The command ἐλεᾶτε (or ἐλεεῖτε, depending on the textual reading) calls for compassion and gentle guidance. The second group is in grave danger, depicted by the imagery of being “on the brink of destruction” (ἐκ πυρὸς). For these, the imperative σῴζετε, reinforced by the participle ἁρπάζοντες, demands urgent and forceful intervention—”snatching them out of the fire.” The third group also receives mercy (ἐλεᾶτε), but with a crucial caveat: ἐν φόβῳ, μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. This implies a cautious mercy, a distinction between showing compassion to the person while absolutely detesting the defilement and sin itself. The image of the “stained tunic” vividly symbolizes the pervasive corruption of sinful lifestyles, underscoring the need for vigilance against contamination.

The use of three distinct commands with corresponding descriptors highlights Jude’s nuanced pastoral theology. It avoids a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with those affected by error, recognizing different levels of culpability and spiritual state. The rhetorical force is to impress upon the readers the urgency and discernment required in their engagement with others in a compromised community.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis confirms that οὓς in Jude 22-23 functions as an anaphoric demonstrative, introducing three distinct groups of people who require varied pastoral responses. The choice between ἐλεᾶτε and ἐλεεῖτε in verse 22 is a minor textual variant with little impact on the core meaning of showing mercy. The passage calls for discernment, compassionate intervention, and a resolute rejection of sin while extending mercy to sinners. The imagery reinforces the urgency and the seriousness of the situation within the community.

1. And to some, have mercy as they doubt;

   This translation prioritizes the demonstrative function of οὓς and directly translates διακρινομένους as “as they doubt,” emphasizing their state as the reason for mercy.

2. But others, save by snatching them from the fire;

   This rendering maintains the imperative force of σῴζετε and vividly portrays the urgent rescue implied by ἁρπάζοντες and the image of “fire.”

3. And to still others, show mercy with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by the sinful flesh.

   This option captures the tripartite structure, explicitly distinguishes the third group, and carefully translates the nuanced mercy that includes a strong rejection of the accompanying sin, using the metaphor of the “defiled tunic.”

“`