Category: Jude

Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν (Jude 1:8)

Translation: In the same manner, these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

Notes: In the same manner, Jude equates the unnatural desires of Sodom and Gomorrah in verse 7 to the Zealots in verse 8. In his mind, the Jewish Zealots perform a similar function in seeking to recruit Judean Christians to their rebellious cause. In particular, these are dreamers (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι). They promote false ideas through fantasies of grandeur. They view themselves too highly and can’t accept why followers of Jesus won’t simply take their route to freedom from Roman oppression.

They take for themselves these visions of grandeur (Bauckham, 56). They feed themselves with their dreams of superiority and greatness and glory. They are, after all, in the body of Moses, and they despise anyone who says they are in the body of Christ, because for these zealots, Jesus is an impious leader who does not want the good of the Jewish people. If he did, he would have come bearing a sword ready to destroy Roman oppression like all the famous Maccabean figures and Jewish revolutionaries.

It seems that with each line Jude writes we see a progressively worsening description of the zealots; a self-absorbed people who are religiously impure (Bateman, 196). James had said that true religion is in helping the poor, but the Zealots believe true religion is pressuring the poor, seducing the poor and widow to violate their Christian oath. Beyond that, they defile the flesh which is to say they pervert the purpose of the flesh which is to give itself for Christ; here, they embrace a law unto themselves; they embrace their own dreams for what the kingdom should look like and therefore they blaspheme every authority figure in the Church. “Your pastor is not leading well; if he were, he would be preaching political sermons every Sunday about Roman oppression!”

Contrary to the NAS, there is no textual indication that they are blaspheming “angelic majesties.” This would only harmonize as an interpretive phrase (not a literal one) if one already assumed that Jude has angelic beings in mind, which I argue is not the most consistent interpretation. I develop this though further in my Theopolis essay on the Nephilim.

These Zealots seem to fit the general description of the line of Cain in Genesis 6 in their rejection of authority structures. They engage in immoral sin which ultimately becomes the sin of Adam taking the seduction of the Serpent over the promises of Yahweh.

I affirm that the “glorious ones” are the saints in the Church who are connected covenantally to Jesus Christ who keeps them (vss. 1-2) and who adopts them into his own glorious body by grace through faith. Jesus is the doxology of the Church and in union with him, we are now his doxological ambassadors.

ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. (Jude 1:7).

Translation: Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, which in the same manner indulged in immoral deeds and went after unnatural flesh, are set before us as proof in undergoing punishment of eternal fire.

Notes: The use of Sodom and Gomorrah would certainly be familiar to the readers in Judea. They are the paradigms of wickedness not only in Genesis but in other extra-biblical sources (Bauckham, 53). The additional cities surrounding these two would include Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar (the latter was spared from judgment (Bauckham, 54).

The translation of “strange flesh” (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας) has caused some headache among commentators. If the intention is to address Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin as the central sexual desires of the men towards the angelic beings, then Jude would have been more specific. Here there is a clear case that strange flesh speaks of broader sins found in these two cities. The idea that this refers to desires to have sex with angels since they possess a different kind of flesh than humans does not seem tenable. In other words, the analogy does not hold true as a comparison to the Jewish Zealots. It seems more likely that “unnatural flesh” refers to various forms of unethical/immoral deeds. There is no doubt that the crux of the Sodom and Gomorrah paradigm is an act of egregious sexual abuse, but Jude seems to have other things in mind as well. For Jude, “unnatural” may have the sense of “things that are not common under divine order.” The point here is to highlight the depths of evil that these Zealots partook of, which compares to the sin of the most (in)famous cause of abuse in Israel’s history.

These examples are exhibits of judgment; such are to be avoided by the Judean Christians who need to take heed to not follow their example, but use such examples as demonstrations of what happens when we follow the deeds of the flesh. The judgment of “eternal fire” to which Jude alludes has to refer to the classic view of hell embraced by Protestant theology. Hell is a place of torment, both physically and spiritually. The use of “eternal” qualifies the fire and therefore cannot refer to any form of temporary judgment. If the text wanted to refer merely to death it would have used “destruction” as it does in verse 11 when speaking of Korah’s rebellion. But here the distinction is made clear between death and eternal fire. One leads to the other, but one is not the end in and of itself.

One final note is in the use of the language of “indulgence.” The example, as Jude makes clear elsewhere, does not speak of a group of people who partook of an act once and changed or repented thereafter. The language indicates (see verse 11) that there is a certain path taken that draws men to engage the path of destruction before an act of utter rebellion occurs. Jude warns against a way of life. The men of S&G did not simply wish to rape the two men because they felt the urge for the first time. The idea is that acts of immorality were quite common and the classic example in Genesis 19 is the culmination.

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.

Jude comes in very Hebraic form. In fact some of the language Jude uses echoes much of what is found in Hebrews 6 & 10. There are warnings to deliver men from the edge of death ( Jude 23) as Hebrews does. One of the questions raised in such occasions is whether Jude’s warnings like Hebrews are sent to Christians or whether it is merely hypothetical. If hypothetical, the warning itself serves little purpose. If, in some way, a covenant member cannot lose his status, the warnings of Jude and Hebrews and other places are null and void.

These warnings are given so we should not drift away. The idea behind a warning implies that some of you may let something slip from your grasp without realizing it; like a ring on your finger. This is why the author says that some will doubt the message of Jesus, and we are going to have to help some people by snatching them from fire. We will have to look at them and say, “Hey, this about your deliverance; you are being led astray by zealots and rebellious people. Don’t neglect such a great salvation.”

Perhaps it is helpful to stop here and make two observations on biblical warnings, so the message of Jude is not misunderstood. The first observation is that this is a covenant warning to God’s covenant members. This is not a warning to those outside the church. Those outside the church already neglect such great salvation. This is a real warning to those members who are covenanted to Christ. They have the benefits of Christ as Judas did, but yet some of them abandon the faith.

The second observation is that we do not need to compromise our convictions to believe this. Those elect to eternal life “cannot be separated from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.” We affirm both of those realities. We need to fit the Bible into our theology, not our theology into the Bible.

These are real warnings to the people of God. You may have grown up in the Church, you may have been baptized into the Church, you may have received the benefits of the Church as a covenant member, but the question for you today is: “Are you slipping away, are you drifting far apart from the Church and her Messiah, are you neglecting the message of salvation, are you affirming Yahweh in your life, are you living as one who has been marked by the waters of baptism? Are you building yourself up in the most holy faith, keeping yourselves in God’s love? Take heed! Listen and cling to Jesus!

Everything Jude tells us in the opening two verses is everything we need for the rest of our lives. Strange lessons and symbolic ideas will fill your hearts with wonder as you read Jude, and may this wonder keep you from stumbling, so that mercy, love and peace be multiplied to you as we embark in this journey into Jude.

Richard Bauckham in 1983 put Jude scholarship back on the map. According to Peter Davids in his Theology of Jude, Bauckham wrote to an audience already familiar with apocalyptic literature during the twentieth century and there was enough material by then to make various conclusions about Jude’s context. Once his commentary was produced a host of others came into the scene (252).

The dating of Jude has always proved complex. Bauckham dates him late in the first century creating a myriad of complications. Among them is the tricky business of whether Jude was addressing present concerns, future concerns, like Gnostics in the second-century, or catholic concerns of the church in general. In my estimation, late dating offers more problems than solutions.

For Davids, the addressees are familiar with Second-Temple literature since Jude seems to assume much in the letter. He further asserts that Jude’s concerns are primary of a Second Temple source and that his details cannot be all traced to Old Testament literature (259). For Jude, his assumptions are that his rhetoric will be persuasive for those whom he addresses. After all, these are people who “meet around meals” (Jude 12), so that a certain familiarity is expected fro moral tradition.

A favorable element of this Theology of Jude is that Davids breaks any consensus that Jude is directly speaking against false teachers. In fact, Jude “never refers those he critiques as teachers.” (260) There are references to the way they speak, but this can be applied generally to other groups as well. The focus for Jude seems to be on their behavior, even “verbal grumbling” (260), and not their teaching necessarily.

If this is the case, the reader will have to contend for another interpretation of whom Jude was rebuking and warning against. The “false-teacher” narrative is all too common, especially in the context of “contending for the faith.” Some commentators assume that Jude picks up similar motifs in Peter’s writing and continue in that trajectory, but what seems more evident is that Jude is addressing a different concern altogether. Davids offers no alternative, except to say that Jude is addressing the “others.” Namely, those who do not share Jude’s sympathies for the cause of Messiah.

Jude is a real letter. Scholarship throughout the last 100 years seek find alternatives to Jude’s authorship as a way of consenting to modern impulse to deny the legitimacy of Jude. Yet, as Bauckham articulates clearly that Jude’s credentials are more than sufficient to fit this “epistolary sermon.” In fact, Jude seems to be deeply grounded in Jewishness. Though it may be shaped like a homily (not uncommon in the ancient world), it has the shape of a letter though it may have been read as a homily to a congregation.

The message seems to be very fitting for a specific situation. It’s not a catholic letter in the sense that it applies to all churches in all cases, though the implication is that, but rather it is addressing a particular issue; one which Jude’s hearers were dealing with in their day. There is a localized audience in mind when he pens these words.

Whoever Jude is addressing merits his distinct attention. We should not assume that the shortness of the letter implies Jude is taking the matter at hand less seriously, rather he can throw an effective punch with a few sober words.

It is also crucial to understand that the harsh argument in the middle of the book is not the center of Jude’s argument, rather it prepares for the real argument which is the central appeal in verses 20-23. This is not a hate-filled missive but a genuine attempt to call the hearers to understand their time in redemptive history and see that they are living in apocalyptic times filled with danger for the days of judgment are near.

It’s not often that I make my translations available to the public, but I’d like to do so more often as a way of putting some of my scholarship out there, but more importantly as a ministry to anyone who finds interest in exegetical studies. Of course, in the process I run the risk of making mistakes, which by now in my pastoral ministry I’ve grown accustomed. I took two years of Koine Greek in College and two more in seminary which gives me a subtle advantage in this process. But alas, twelve years later can make a man rusty and dusty in the ancient language. Here’s my humble attempt to touch base with that needed process of translation. I will aim for a fairly literal translation while taking some liberty with dynamic renderings. My main pulpit translation is the English Standard Version which I cherish.

Jude

(Salutation)

1:1 Ἰούδας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου, τοῖς ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς·

1:2 ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη.

(Judgment on False Teachers)

1:3 Ἀγαπητοί, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει.

Translation: Jude, bond-servant of Jesus Christ, brother of James, to those called and loved in God the Father, preserved for Jesus Christ. May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.

Beloved, although I was eager to write to you about our shared salvation, I found it necessary to write to you appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

-Jude 1:1-3

Notes:

*Jude is the brother of James which makes him the half-brother of Jesus. He was one of the twelve apostles. His name is also translated in some places as Judas or Judah and means “he shall be praised.”

*Opening verses establish his credentials as one under the authority and an eye-witness to the risen Messiah.

* κλητοῖς· adjective normal dative masculine plural no degree from κλητός – speaks of one who has accepted a calling or an invitation to become a guest or member of a select group.

*There is difference between Byzantine and Nestle-Aland here in understanding “loved” and “sanctified.” There is some overlap in language. The KJV does not include that the saints were loved, but that they were sanctified by God the Father. The ideas are quite similar since to be loved is to be set aside for a purpose. I am following the Nestle-Aland for various reasons. The idea of love is communicated in verse 2.

*I chose “preserve” for τετηρημένοις since the idea behind the language is that someone is keeping a watchful care over an inferior. In this case, God’s people are being preserved for a particular function.

*Verse 2 is pretty straightforward. Some translations like the NAS begin with “may” as a kind of initial benediction, but the KJV is more literal in its rendering.

*Verse 3 is the expression of purpose: to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

*Ἀγαπητοί is a term of endearment. It still relates to introductory remarks. Jude is addressing from a point of love.

*κοινῆς has this sense of a shared mission.

*ἀνάγκην is singular, thus “it was necessary to me” or “I found it necessary.”

*παρακαλῶν implies an exhortation, a deep appeal to get someone to do something of great significance.

*ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι is in the infinitive present middle stressing a call to “fight for” something greater than yourself; there is an athletic imagery involved.