220 Peter Spitaler within the setting of a chiastic argument. Still, whereas the ou}" mevn – ou}" dev structure does not reflect divisions, it does establish a dichotomy: although the faithful are to extend mercy to the disputers, they may only be able to save some. Thus, I propose the following translation of vv. 22-23: “to these disputers extend mercy; some save by snatching them from the fire; but to these extend mercy, in fear, hating also the flesh-stained garment”. With this reading, the second pronoun phrase ou}" dev [B] establishes the contrast, and the third [A1], the link with the first [A]. After v. 3, in which Jude urges the faithful “to contend for the faith” in response to community infiltration (v. 4), vv. 22-23 is the only section in Jude’s letter in which the faithful are told how to interact with the infiltrators. At this point, they already know who the infiltrators are, how God is expected to deal with them, and what measures they themselves are to take as they await God’s mercy. Only now, in vv. 22-23, does Jude inform them about the degree of involvement with the separatists he expects. Consequently, in v. 22-23 Jude emphasizes “these” (ou{") only insofar as he calls the faithful members of the community to respond to the separatists. For the faithful, these responses are not optional; they are imperative (55). 4. The link between Jude 9 and 22-23 Repeating the verb diakrivnomai at the end of his letter, Jude establishes an aural link for his hearers, emphasizes the central threat to the community (its potential division), and establishes firm thematic links within the immediate and broader literary contexts. By placing diakrivnomai initially within an example toward the beginning of his (55) Whereas my analysis is based on the three-clause rendering of vv. 22-23, neither a two-clause reading of these verses nor the translation “dispute” for diakrinomai per se alleviates the who-is-who problem posed by these verses or v affects a significantly different understanding of Jude’s argument in his letter’s concluding section. For instance, BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 115 supports the two- clause reading and translates diakrivnomai, “dispute” (cf. also NEYREY, 2 Peter, Jude, 91). However, he still sees community members under the influence of the infiltrators in the persons who ought to be “snatched from the fire”; for him, the disputers are not infiltrators but community members who reject Jude’s scolding of the infiltrators. Thus, Bauckham supports the shift from a three-clause to a two- clause reading with the translation “dispute” for diakrivnomai but continues the tradition of finding various sub-divisions among the faithful. The difference: that which is interpreted community doubters by most exegetes Bauckham now calls community disputers.