Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,
Verse 5: Now I wish to remind you, though you know all things once and for all, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Notes: There are some linguistic disputes here, especially in the second clause. (εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι). Grammatically, we should ask whether ἅπαξ modifies σώσας. The end result, whether it’s translated “that the Lord delivered once” or “although you know all things once and for all” does not change much the meaning of the text, since Jude is creating a clear case for the Lordship of Jesus over knowledge. However, the various readings from the Alexandrian and other texts would confirm that most English translations are correct to reinforce that Jude is stressing knowledge of events, rather than Jesus as the distributor of knowledge (Bateman 165). Thus, we should embrace the reading, “though you know all things once and for all.”
The KJV gives the impression that the Judean Christians knew this at one time, but no longer remember the event, when it translated “though ye once knew this.” But Jewish tradition is built on repetitive acts of liturgy, which implies that they did not once know and now forgot, but that they already knew and need to be reminded of the determinate lesson within. The other obvious concern is to focus on what event Jude has in mind. Jude is stressing the necessity of remembrance as an act of Christian practice. The people were to remember their deliverance, both generally and specifically. It seems that the problem was not so much remembering an event, but the lesson of the event and what one gains from it.
For instance, one could remember what happened in one event, but forget what the event meant for their life and ethics. We could say that they are to remember the deliverance of Egypt as a whole. Bauckham sees this as a general reference to the Exodus as a lesson in how Israel should interpret their eschatological end (Bauckham, 50). But the specific event of Kadesh-Barnea seems to be more plausible, especially because of its massive and rebellious consequences (Bateman 172). In the book of Numbers, twelve spies were sent out to spy the land for forty days and at their return only two expressed confidence in overcoming Canaan. The others expressed great doubt which led to consternation and concern about Moses’ leadership. The people grumbled and asked for a new leader. “Ten unbelieving spies led an entire community to doubt God’s ability to deliver.” (Bateman, 172).
What we see in such situations is that it leads to mutiny; the kind that shakes communities and leads to unbelief. These disobedient and rebellious Israelites were used as examples in Jude’s writing. The Judean Christians were not to imitate them, lest they received the same destruction. Again, any interpretation that focuses on false teachers as the main characters here fail to grasp Jude’s central argument that those “creeping in” are seeking a rebellion against Rome and not simply to draw people away from Messiah’s message. They are recruiting for their cause by proclaiming an anti-Jesus message.
