218 Peter Spitaler Jude frames the central clause, ou}" de; sw/vzete ejk puro;" aJrpavzonte", “some save, snatching them from the fire” [B] (46), with repeated instructions to extend mercy to the disputers [A][A1]. Within a chiastic argument, the repeated directives, ejlea'te [A][A1], are not redundant. Rather, they open and conclude the argument: the first clause [A] clarifies to whom mercy is to be extended, the disputers; the third clause [A1] clarifies how mercy ought to be extended, i.e., this engagement between the faithful and the disputers is to happen ejn fobw, “in fear”. Given a chiastic argument, this structurally ambiguous v/ expression — ejn fovbw/ may qualify either the participle misou'nte", “hating”, or the imperative ejlea'te, “extend mercy” — modifies the imperative and simultaneously establishes a lexical link with Jude’s statement in v. 12, suneuwcouvmenoi ajfovbw": the infiltrators feast together “fearlessly” with community members(47). In v. 12, Jude also uses the plural spilavde", “dangerous reef” (48), in reference to the intruders, which gives particular emphasis to the presence of fear in the community (49). The infiltrators can indeed “fearlessly” feast with community members, i.e., they are not a danger to themselves. Rather, they constitute a dangerous presence at communal celebrations that can shipwreck faithful members of the community (50). Thus, the infiltrators need to be engaged “with fear”. By framing the central command swv/zete [B] with the imperatives ejlea'te [A][A1], Jude also clarifies that having mercy and saving are not mutually exclusive events. Rather, —————— However, he differs from other exegetes by arguing that Jude, in vv. 22-23, addresses the faithful to save the one group of doubting members among them (not various levels of spiritually troubled believers). Thus, he posits three groups addressed in Jude’s letter: the infiltrators, the faithful, and the one group of “weak believers who are coming under the thrall of the opponents”. (46) Many scholars see the OT background of vv. 22-23 in Zech 3,1-5: the high priest Joshua, or possibly Israel, is “a brand plucked from fire”; cf. BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 108-111; HARRINGTON, Jude and 2 Peter, 223-224. (47) PERKINS, 1, 2 Peter, James, Jude, 152 translates the adverb ajfovbw" “without reference” and, thus, diminishes the possible connection with fovbo" in v. 23. (48) Cf. BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 85 for this translation. (49) Fear only comes to the fore if one does not translate the noun spivla" as though it has the same meaning as spivlo", “stain”. Cf. BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 77, 85 and NEYREY, 2 Peter, Jude, 74-75 for a discussion of different approaches to the meaning of spivla" in Jude. (50) Cf. M. GREEN, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude. An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester 21987) 189 who uses the term “shipwreck” in this context.