By James M. Rochford

Jude was the half-brother of Jesus and the full brother of James. During his earthly ministry, Jude didn’t believe in Jesus (Jn. 7:5; Mk. 3:21, 31), but he came to faith in him after seeing him risen from the dead (Acts 1:14). Jude is most likely writing to the Jerusalem church sometime after AD 70, and he is specifically refuting licentious false teachers who have entered this church. He implores his readers to battle for true spirituality and to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3).

Table of Contents

Authorship. 1

Audience. 3

Which was written first: Second Peter or Jude?. 4

Date. 7

Canonicity. 8

How to use this commentary well 10

Consulted Commentaries. 11

Commentary on Jude. 11

Authorship

Jude was the half-brother of Jesus and the full-brother of James. These two brothers are listed together in the Gospels: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas [Jude] and Simon?” (Mk. 6:3; cf. Mt. 13:55) Jewish men would typically identify themselves through their identification of their father—not their brother.^[1] Yet, Jude opens his letter by writing, “Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” (Jude 1).

Jude came to faith in Christ after the resurrection. During Jesus’ ministry, we read, “Not even His brothers were believing in Him” (Jn. 7:5). Yet, later, Jesus’ brothers were gathered together with the early believers in the upper room: “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers” (Acts 1:14).

Jude became a leader in the early church. Paul argues that the “brothers of the Lord [Jesus]” were allowed to take their wives with them on missionary journeys (1 Cor. 9:5). This implies that Jude became a travelling missionary.

Jude was a Jewish believer. There is good internal evidence that Jude came from Palestine, because he doesn’t cite the LXX, even though he cites the OT frequently.^[2] Of course, this would fit with the idea that Jude stayed in Israel, alongside his brother James. Bauckham observes many different Palestinian features of the letter. He writes of the “the general character of the letter, its Jewishness, its debt to Palestinian Jewish literature and haggadic traditions, its apocalyptic perspective and exegetical methods, its concern for ethical practice more than for doctrinal belief, are all entirely consistent with authorship by Jude the brother of Jesus.”^[3]

Moreover, Jude’s name (Ioudas) is the same word that is translated “Judah,” and therefore, the author was most likely “Jewish since in ancient literature and inscriptions ‘Jude’ never appears as the name of a gentile.”^[4] Indeed, early church history states that a “Jude” was the final pastor of the church in Jerusalem (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.5.3; Epiphanius, Panarion, 66.20.1-2; The Apostolic Constitutions, 7.46). However, Green states that this simply shows that Jesus’ family was known to the early church, and perhaps not much more.^[5]

Some critics argue that Jude was pseudepigraphic (i.e. a later forgery). But Bauckham argues, “Against the pseudepigraphal hypothesis, it has often been asked why anyone should adopt as a pseudonym the name of so obscure a figure as Jude.”^[6] That is to say, if a fake author was trying to impersonate an apostle, why would he adopt the name Jude? Moreover, it would’ve been far more likely that he would’ve called himself “the brother of Jesus” or “the brother of the Lord,” rather than identifying himself as “a bond-servant of Jesus Christ” and the “brother of James.”

Audience

Did Jude write to Alexandria? Some have argued that Jude wrote to Christians in Alexandria, Egypt. For one, the language fits with Alexandria, mentioning wild waves (v.13), an arid climate (v.12), and the Exodus from Egypt (v.5). Second, the letter was widely recognized as authentic in Alexandria, both by Clement and Origen, who served in this region. Third, Clement of Alexandria used the letter to refute the Carpocratian heresy, which was a second-century gnostic sect (Stromata 3.2.11; Letter to Theodorus 1.3, 7).

However, this seems strained. After all, Jude wasn’t confronting the same heresy as Clement (who lived over a century later). Indeed, Clement stated that Jude lived far earlier, and he wrote, “Of these and other similar sects Jude, I think, spoke prophetically in his letter… [loosely citing Jude 8]” (Letter to Theodorus).

Jude wrote to Palestinian Jews

We agree with Bauckham^[7] and Green^[8] that Jude’s audience consisted of primarily Jewish Christians in Israel—and perhaps Christians in the Jerusalem church. Jude refers to “James,” who was the leader of the Jerusalem church (Jude 1), and he feels no need to elaborate. This is most likely because his audience knew the person to whom he was referring. Eusebius states that Jesus’ family continued to live in Israel (Ecclesiastical History 1.7.14), so this would fit with Jude writing to Christians in Israel.

OBJECTION #1. Jude wouldn’t have written this with such excellent Greek if his Jewish audience knew Greek as a second language.

Green^[9] retorts that this letter could have been written to the highly educated. Indeed, many of the Jews in Palestine were Hellenistic Jews, whose native tongue was Greek (Acts 2:5-11; 6:1, 9).

OBJECTION #2. Jude’s letter responds to wild licentious lifestyles. A Jewish audience wouldn’t have been so licentious, as the letter describes.

This is an unwarranted assumption for a number of reasons:

First, Jewish men had a sin nature—just like every other person on the Planet Earth! Tacitus wrote, “[Jewish men] are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful” (Histories 5.5). Furthermore, the non-biblical, Jewish book of Sirach gives warnings against all sorts of sexual immorality, including lust, fornication, adultery, and prostitution (Sir. 9:2-9). Thus, Jude’s indictments against sexual sin shouldn’t surprise us.

Second, Jude’s mention of the “love feasts” would have been scandalous in this Jewish culture. After all, Jewish women “did not ordinarily attend either public or formal domestic dinners with men.” At Passover, a Jewish woman would join, but only “at her husband’s side.”^[10] Modern people might find this odd to consider. Yet, it could’ve created sexual temptation to go from little to no interaction with women to spending regular time with them in Christian fellowship. This could’ve created unique difficulties in such a highly conservative culture.

Third, Israel had a sizeable Gentile population. These would include “Caesarea Maritima, Dor, Ptolemais, Caesarea Philippi, Sepphoris, and Sebaste, not to mention the Greek cities of the Decapolis.”^[11] Perhaps some of the false teachers entering the church were Gentiles, who came from these territories.

Which was written first: Second Peter or Jude?

Even a cursory reading of 2 Peter and Jude reveals that these two books have similarities with one another. One is surely copying from the other:

These letters show that one of the authors was dependent on the other, but who copied from whom? Michael Green^[12] holds that both authors quoted from a common source. However, this doesn’t pass Ockham’s Razor: We shouldn’t multiply sources beyond necessity.

Bauckham,^[13] Green,^[14] and Schreiner^[15] hold that 2 Peter copied from Jude. Indeed, it is the “judgment of most modern scholars, that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude.”^[16] Bauckham argues that Jude must have been first, because (1) he uses carefully crafted language and (2) he uses rapid fire allusions to the OT. These evidences imply that Jude was the original and refined letter, while 2 Peter was a rougher version that copied from it. Yet this doesn’t seem convincing in our estimation.

First, the longer and more elaborate version is typically secondary. Usually, an author will elaborate on a shorter manuscript, but it is unusual for him to shorten an earlier account. Bauckham himself admits this when he writes, “There are cases where a more complex literary work is based on a simpler one, and a priori that might even seem a more likely procedure, but consideration of this particular case seems to indicate that it must be one in which the more complex work is prior.”^[17]

Second, the Greek is far more polished in Jude than in 2 Peter. Why would a later author make the Greek less polished if he was quoting from an earlier letter? Incidentally, this evidence is a staple for Markan priority.

Third, Jude seems to cite directly from 2 Peter 3:3, which he considers an apostolic letter. Compare Jude and 2 Peter:

(Jude 17-18) “You, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, ¹⁸ that they were saying to you, ‘In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.’”

(2 Pet. 3:3) “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts.”

Regarding this interplay, R. Laird Harris writes, “In Jude vs. 17 and 18 there is a passage where there is a quotation of another book. The relation between other verses in Jude and 2 Peter 2 has been much discussed as to which depended on the other, but Jude 17 and 18 give the words of 2 Peter 3:3 almost verbatim and claim that it was foretold by apostles. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jude was quoting 2 Peter as the authoritative word of an apostle.”^[18]

We agree with the assessment of scholars like Daniel Wallace[19] and R. Laird Harris^[20] who argue that 2 Peter precedes Jude. Many critical scholars seem to prefer Jude’s priority because otherwise he would be referring to 2 Peter as a genuine, apostolic letter (Jude 17). Since most modern scholars (Bauckham included) deny Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, it seems that they resist this conclusion. Indeed, Daniel Wallace[21] thinks that there is a “presupposition of inauthenticity for 2 Peter” that drives the view that Jude preceded 2 Peter. Of course, this presupposition cannot be pressed uniformly; after all, conservative scholars like Green or Schreiner don’t hold this view. But Wallace’s assessment would apply to the majority of Petrine scholars who reject 2 Peter as a forgery. In this case, the consensus is only as good as the presuppositions that undergird it. We affirm that Peter wrote 2 Peter, and understand this as the letter to which Jude refers in verses 17-18 (see “Introduction to 1 & 2 Peter”).

Date

We can give some general boundaries to this letter, but overall, Jude is very difficult to date.

Jude’s citation of 2 Peter would imply a date after AD 68. Jude expects his readers to recall the words of 2 Peter 3:3, because he cites Peter’s work (Jude 17-18). This would mean that he was writing after the other apostles wrote their works—specifically, 2 Peter (as we argued above). Since Peter wrote at the end of his life (2 Pet. 1:14), this would date Jude sometime after AD 67-68.

What about the Jewish War? (AD 66-70) The difficulty is that this would mean that Jude was writing to the church after the horror of the Jewish War (AD 66-70). Yet, Jude doesn’t mention anything about this, nor does he mention anything about suffering. At the same time, this evidence isn’t definitive. After all, early church history tells us that the Jewish Christians fled the destruction of Jerusalem. For instance, Epiphanius (4^th c.) wrote, “The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea… Pella, and in Bashan… That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged” (Panarion 29:7:7-8). Likewise, Eusebius (4^th c.) stated, “The people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella” (Church History, 3.5.3).

Why does Jude refer to his brother James would’ve been already dead? (AD 62) Jude mentions his brother James (Jude 1), but he doesn’t mention his death (which occurred in ~AD 62). If James had already died at the writing of this letter, then Jude probably would have referred to him as “blessed,” “good,” or “the just,” which was the typical title given to James after his death (Hegesippus, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4; Gospel of Thomas 21). Thus, Bauckham writes, “Jude must be dated before James’s martyrdom in a.d. 62. But this cannot be regarded as a very conclusive argument.”^[22]

Perhaps Bauckham is right. However, it’s also possible that Jude was writing to this orphaned church who knew James very well. And if they knew him well, then Jude wouldn’t need to explicitly tell them that James was martyred—for indeed, they would’ve already known this. Moreover, we don’t know how much time passed before these titles ascribed to James became standardized. And even if they did become standardized, how do we know that James’ brother would’ve used them?

Conclusion. The data are admittedly confusing and conflicting. However, if we had to guess, we would date this letter sometime after AD 70.

Canonicity

The universal church was slow to accept Jude as Scripture. Jude’s letter was “accepted widely in the West and in Alexandria,” but the “Syrian churches were slow to acknowledge its canonicity.”^[23] Yet this was quite common. The churches in Syria were far more conservative than those in Alexandria, and they only added books after intense scrutiny. In fact, the Syrian church didn’t fully accept Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation until the 6^th century! At the same time, many Christians accepted this letter as Scripture:

• Many Christians cited Jude in the second century. We see many “references or echoes of Jude in the writings of the fathers, including the second-century Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Polycarp, and Clement, as well as the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Didache, Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas.”^[24]
• The Muratorian Canon (AD 180) affirms the canonicity of Jude.
• Tertullian (AD 200) cites Jude (On the Apparel of Women3).
• Clement of Alexandra (AD 200) wrote a commentary on Jude (Church History14.1), and he may have considered it inspired Scripture.^[25]
• Origen (AD 250) recognized that Jude was disputed (Commentary on John6), but he still called Jude 6 “Holy Scripture” (Commentary on Romans 3.6). He stated that Jude “wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the powerful words of heavenly grace” (Commentary on Matthew 10.17). Origen was sure of its canonicity (Hom. Jos. 7.1; Hom. Gen. 6.115-116).
• Eusebius (4^th century) writes, “It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the epistle called Jude’s which is itself one of the seven called Catholic; nevertheless we know that these letters have been used publicly with the rest in most churches.”^[26] Eusebius stated that the letter “disputed,” but it was widely read in the churches (Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.25; 3.25.3; 6.13.6; 6.14.1).
• Jerome (AD 400’s) affirmed the inspiration of Jude, but he stated that the letter was disputed because it cited 1 Enoch (Lives of Illustrious Men, 4). Indeed, Green writes, “Whatever doubts were entertained about the authenticity of Jude did not appear to have any other root cause apart from its use of apocryphal sources.”^[27] Incidentally, Tertullian solved this problem by claiming that 1 Enoch was inspired Scripture! (On the Apparel of Women3)

In short, the canonicity of Jude rests upon his citation of apocryphal sources. Since we have good answers to this difficulty, we see no reason to question Jude’s inspiration. Indeed, many early Christians accepted Jude as Scripture.

How to use this commentary well

For personal use. We wrote this material to build up people in their knowledge of the Bible. As the reader, we hope you enjoy reading through the commentary to grow in your interpretation of the text, understand the historical backdrop, gain insight into the original languages, and reflect on our comments to challenge your thinking. As a result, we hope this will give you a deeper love for the word of God.

Teaching preparation. We read through several commentaries in order to study this book, and condensed their scholarship into an easy-to-read format. We hope that this will help those giving public Bible teachings to have a deep grasp of the book as they prepare to teach. As one person has said, “All good public speaking is based on good private thinking.”^[28] We couldn’t agree more. Nothing can replace sound study before you get up to teach, and we hope this will help you in that goal. And before you complain about our work, don’t forget that the price is right: FREE!

Questions for Reflection. Each section or chapter is outfitted with numerous questions for reflection. We think these questions would work best in a small men’s or women’s group—or for personal reading. In general, these questions are designed to prompt participants to explore the text or to stimulate application.

Discussing Bible difficulties. We highlight Bible difficulties with hyperlinks to articles on those subjects. All of these questions could make for dynamic discussion in a small group setting. As a Bible teacher, you could raise the difficulty, allow the small group to wrestle with it, and then give your own perspective.

As a teacher, you might give some key cross references, insights from the Greek, or other relevant tools to help aid the study. This gives students the tools that they need to answer the difficulty. Then, you could ask, “How do these points help answer the difficulty?”

Reading Bible difficulties. Some Bible difficulties are highly complex. For the sake of time, it might simply be better to read the article and ask, “What do you think of this explanation? What are the most persuasive points? Do you have a better explanation than the one being offered?”

Think critically. We would encourage Bible teachers to not allow people to simply read this commentary without exercising discernment and testing the commentary with sound hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation). God gave the church “teachers… to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). We would do well to learn from them. Yet, we also need to read their books with critical thinking, and judge what we’re reading (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). This, of course, applies to our written commentary as well as any others!

In my small men’s Bible study, I am frequently challenged, corrected, and sharpened in my ability to interpret the word of God. I frequently benefit from even the youngest Christians in the room. I write this with complete honesty—not pseudo-humility. We all have a role in challenging each other as we learn God’s word together. We would do well to learn from Bible teachers, and Bible teachers would do well to learn from their students!

At the same time, we shouldn’t disagree simply for the sake of being disagreeable. This leads to rabbit trails that can actually frustrate discussion. For this reason, we should follow the motto, “The best idea wins.” If people come to different conclusions on unimportant issues, it’s often best to simply acknowledge each other’s different perspectives and simply move on.

Consulted Commentaries

We consulted many commentaries for individual passages, but we read these specific commentaries below thoroughly.

Edwin A. Blum, “Jude,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987).

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003).

Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008).

Commentary on Jude

(Jude 1) “Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.”

“Jude” could’ve identified himself as Jesus’ half-brother (cf. Gal. 1:19). Instead, he chose to call himself the “bond-servant” or “slave” (doulous) of Jesus. That is, he didn’t identify himself by his genetics, but by his spiritual dedication to Jesus. Similarly, while Paul identified James as the brother of Jesus, James self-identified as the “slave” of Christ (Jas. 1:1).

Why didn’t Jude call himself a brother of Jesus? For one, James didn’t call himself Jesus’ brother either—even though this is historically attested on solid ground (Gal. 1:19; 2:9; 1 Cor. 15:7). Instead, like Jude, James called himself a “bond-servant… of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas. 1:1). Second, Jude didn’t identify himself by his genetics, but by his dedicated to Christ. (This is a lesson that many Christians could learn from Jude!) Third, since James was such a well-known Jewish-Christian leader, he might have wanted to identify himself with his brother’s authority in the Jerusalem church (even if it was posthumous).

What does it mean to be a Christian? Jude gives three descriptions: (1) “called,” (2) “beloved,” and (3) “kept.”

(1) “Called” (klētos) is a noun that describes Christians. This text doesn’t tell us how we become called—only that we are the called. Incidentally, Peter tells us that we are called “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:2).

Does this support Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace? Reformed interpreters like Schreiner give the standard Calvinistic view that the “call of God is extended only to some and is always successful, so that all those who are called become believers.”^[29] Later, however, he writes, “Israel was ‘called’ by God to be his people… Now the chosen people of God are those who trust in Jesus Christ.”^[30] This betrays a serious difficulty: Not all Israelites were saved. Moreover, the “calling” of Israel was for the nation, not for the individual. The concept of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace crumble under the weight of this comparison with Israel, which is, of course, the closest correspondent to NT election.

(2) “Beloved” (ēgapēmenoi) comes from the same root word used of Jesus when God called him his “beloved Son, in whom [He is] well-pleased” (Mt. 3:17). Because all Christians are “in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6), God loves us and is well-pleased with us. This is at the heart of being a Christian.

(3) “Kept” (tetērēmenois) means to “keep watch over” or “guard” or “hold, reserve, preserve” (BDAG, 1002). This term is in the passive voice, which implies that we are “kept by Jesus Christ.” In other words, Jesus is keeping us close to him, just as we also need to keep ourselves in the love of Christ (Jude 21). Divine agency and human responsibility find their balance here. This is in contrast to the heretics mentioned below, who do not keep themselves in the love of God and are definitely not kept by Jesus.

(Jude 2) “May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.”

“Peace” (eirēnē) refers to a “state of concord” or “harmony” (BDAG, p.287). This is the Greek word that the LXX used to translate the Hebrew word shalom.^[31] Jude could be referring to inner peace given to us by Christ (Rom. 15:13; Phil. 4:6-7; Jn. 14:27; 16:33) or the peace that we possess with other believers (Rom. 14:19; Eph. 4:3; 1 Pet. 3:11; Mt. 5:9).

Most likely, Jude is referring to “peace” between believers which is in stark contrast with the false teachers. Green writes, “Jude’s understanding of peace is not the same as contemporary ideas of individual emotional tranquility (‘peace in my heart’) but is an interpersonal reality. Their welfare or well-being is relational at its root.”^[32] We agree. Later Jude writes, “These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19).

“Mercy” (eleos) is the word that the LXX used for translating the Hebrew hesed (“loyal love”). Michael Green states the significance of this well when he writes, “Every day of his life the Christian stands in need of the mercy of God. Nothing but unmerited mercy can meet the constant needs of habitual sinners.”^[33]

“Multiplied” (plēthunō) refers to “abundance” or being “filled to capacity.”^[34] This means that God wants our lives to be overflowing with his mercy, peace, and love. Jude must’ve felt the need to pray this “because an abundance of these qualities was needed at a stressful time in the church’s life.”^[35]

(Jude 3) “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

“I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation.” Jude initially intended to write a letter about their “common salvation.” Likely, he was going to write about the nuts and bolts of Christianity. However, he changed directions, choosing to write about “contending earnestly for the faith.” It’s a remarkable concept that “Jude never intended to write this letter!”^[36] Yet, false teachers had interrupted his plans when they entered the church (v.4), and hence, Jude needed to exhort these believers to defend their faith and their church.

“Contend” (epagonizesthai) comes from the root word “agony” or “agonize.” Jude likely chose this word to “emphasize that the defence of this faith will be continuous, costly and agonizing.^[37] This term was used to refer to an athletic competition, warfare (Plutarch, Fabius Maximus 23.2.3), virtuous living (Philo, Virtues 26 § 142.1), or debate (Philo, Eternity 14 § 70.1).^[38] It means to “exert intense effort on behalf of something” (BDAG, p.356). Jude could have all of these connotations in mind. This imagery would explain the way that these believers should defend their faith in the face of serious false teachers.

“The faith.” This doesn’t refer to our personal and private faith. Rather, it refers to the faith (cf. Gal. 1:23; Acts 6:7; Eph. 4:5). It can be understood as “what the church proclaims, [namely] the gospel.”^[39] Michael Green states that this refers more broadly to “the apostolic teaching and preaching which was regulative upon the church (Acts 2:42).”^[40]

“Once for all handed down to the saints.” This is the language used by Pharisees for transmitting sacred teaching from one generation to the next (paradidonai). Paul uses this term for passing down or “delivering” (paradidōmi) the gospel message to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3).^[41]

(Jude 4) “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

For whatever reason, all Christian cults deny either (1) the person or (2) the work of Jesus.

These false teachers denied the WORK of Jesus. In this case, they deny the grace of God, twisting it into “licentiousness.” The word “licentiousness” (aselgeian) means to have a “lack of self-constraint,” and this results in “[violating] all bounds of what is socially acceptable” (BDAG, p.141). It refers to “sexual sin,” and indeed, the “context of the letter as a whole suggests that sexual sin is intended.”^[42] Paul had been accused of teaching licentiousness (Rom. 3:8), but true grace doesn’t teach this (Rom. 6:1-2).

These false teachers also denied the PERSON of Jesus. Jude writes that they “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude doesn’t elaborate on exactly how they deny the person of Jesus. How, this “phrase suggests the divinity of Jesus Christ.”^[43] This would fit with their rejection of Jesus’ authoritative teaching in view of licentiousness (cf. Titus 1:16).

They are highly covert—not overt. No false teacher ever says, “Hi! I like to teach the doctrines of demons, and I’m here to ruin your spiritual life!” Instead, these teachers had “crept in unnoticed.” Similarly, according to Paul, false teachers “secretly introduce destructive heresies” (c.f. 2 Cor. 11:14; Gal. 2:4).

How did these people “creep in unnoticed”? They made it directly into the inner life of the Christian community, which implies that they had become friends with these believers (v.12). Specifically, they did this through “flattering people” (v.16).

(Jude 4) Condemned beforehand? The NASB footnote points out an alternate translation: “Those who were written about long ago.” Jude goes on to quote multiple people in the OT era, who were “written about” as being judged (vv.5-16). In this way, Jude was not referring to predestination; he was referring to the writing of the Old Testament. Green concurs when he writes, “‘This judgment Jude has in mind is what he will outline in the rest of the epistle (vv. 5-7, 10-15). His concern is to demonstrate to his readers the final outcome of the heretics’ lifestyle and teaching.”^[44] Green goes on to state that these OT events could typologically predict the judgment of these false teachers.

Jude’s argument for Judgment for False Teachers (vv.5-19)

In the body of Jude’s letter, he reflects on various episodes from the past to demonstrate that God will judge those who are licentious or willfully unbelieving. In each example, Jude’s “fundamental concern is to show how they transgressed or overstepped divinely established order.”^[45] As a result, they faced judgment.

The Israelites of the Exodus Generation

(Jude 5) “Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.”

“I desire to remind you.” We can know the truth, but we all need reminded from time to time. Jude reminds his audience of the historical account of the Exodus generation. While the Israelites had seen God move miraculously to rescue them, they quickly forgot all about this. Similarly, as believers, we can be rescued by God, but quickly forget about his love, mercy, and grace.

“The Lord [Jesus], after saving a people.” The NASB footnote states that early manuscripts contain “Jesus” here, rather than “Lord.” Textual critic Bruce Metzger states, “[Jesus is] admittedly… the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses.”^[46] Furthermore, this reading passes one of the key canons of textual criticism—namely, the “more difficult reading is to be preferred.”^[47] (See the NET note for an explanation of the manuscript evidence) What is the importance of this textual variant?

(1) This is a very good argument for the deity of Christ. In the OT, Yahweh was the one to rescue the people. Repeatedly, in the Septuagint (LXX), we read “that the ‘Lord’ (kyrios; Exod. 7:5; 12:51; 13:3, 9, 14, 16; 16:6; 18:1; Deut. 1:27; 26:8; ‘Lord’ in NRSV), the ‘Lord God’ (kyrios ho theos; Exod. 20:2; 29:46; Num. 15:41; Deut. 5:6, 15; 6:12; 8:14; 13:5, 11; 29:24 [29:25 Eng.]; Dan. 9:15; Bar. 2:11), or simply ‘God’ (theos; Num. 23:22; Deut. 4:20) is the one who brought the people up out of the land of Egypt.”^[48] Yet Jude says that Jesus was the one to save the people in the Exodus. Hence, Jesus is Yahweh.

(2) This is good evidence that God’s character has remained consistent. We cannot consistently hold that the “harsh God of the Old Testament” is different from the depiction of the “meek and mild Jesus.” Jesus was actively involved in the OT story of salvation (1 Cor. 10:4, 9). After all, Jesus was the one to bring judgment on the Israelites in the Wilderness.

“After saving a people… subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.” The false teachers were claiming to be members of the “saved” people, but they were engaging in hardcore sexual immorality. Jude’s point is that the Israelites were also “saved” people, but the unbelievers within the group still faced judgment. Being a member of a social group doesn’t make someone an authentic believer.

Angels in Genesis 6

(Jude 6) “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.”

Angels from the time before the Flood rejected the love of God and took advantage of human women. As a result, they were placed under judgment (see Genesis 6:4 Who or what were the Nephilim?). These demons are currently being are currently being “kept” (tetērēken) in prison (cf. Mt. 27:36, 54; Acts 12:5; 16:23).

Why does Jude appeal to this event in Genesis 6? He is showing that the false teachers were claiming to be in God’s grace, but they were willfully choosing for serious sexual immorality—just like these fallen angels. Michael Green writes, “Were the false teachers arrogant? Let them remember that arrogance had ruined the angels. Were they consumed by lust? This, too, caused the downfall of the angels.”^[49] Thus, Jude is appealing to an excellent OT example to demonstrate that even angels can fall and be “kept in eternal bonds under darkness for judgment.” For them, “the black darkness has been reserved forever” (v.13).

Sodom and Gomorrah

(Jude 7) “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

“The cities around them.” God didn’t just destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He also destroyed the surrounding cities. Moses writes, “All its land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows in it, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in His anger and in His wrath” (Deut. 29:23).

What is the “gross immorality” mentioned here? The term “gross immorality” (ekporneuo) is only used here in the NT. It comes from the root words “from” (ek) and “sexual immorality” (porneuō). Thus, if we gave it a wooden translation, it would mean “from (or out of) sexual immorality.” Michael Green understands this to refer to sex that is “against the course of nature,” and more specifically to “homosexuality.”^[50] The LXX uses the term 41 times, and it can mean “either to indulge in sexual relations” or “to indulge in acts of unfaithfulness with respect to God.”^[51]

What is the “strange flesh” mentioned here? Since the men of Sodom tried to have sex with the two angels, Michael Green^[52] and Bauckham^[53] hold the possibility that the “strange flesh” would refer to angelic flesh. They point to the conjunction “just as” (hos) that starts the beginning of the sentence. To paraphrase, “Just as the angels had sex with humans in Genesis 6, the humans wanted to have sex with angels in Genesis 19.”

This interpretation is possible. However, it seems unlikely in our estimation. For one, the angels are immaterial spirits—not corporeal or “flesh” (sarx). Even if they appeared in physical human bodies, this would be a strange way to describe immaterial beings like angels. Second, in Genesis 19, the gang of men didn’t know that these visitors were angels; they thought the visitors were men: “The most important evidence against the proposed interpretation is that the men in Sodom who had a sexual desire for the angels did not know they were angels.”^[54] The men of Sodom yelled, “Where are the men [not angels] who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!” (Gen. 19:5 NLT) Thus, Schreiner writes, “The term more naturally refers to a desire for those of the same sex; they desired flesh other than that of women.”^[55]

Why does Jude appeal to Genesis 19? Once again, Jude is demonstrating from the OT that sexual immorality results in judgment—not true spirituality.

(Jude 8) “Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.”

“Dreaming” (enupniazomai) doesn’t refer to the English expression, “He’s just a dreamer!” Instead, “Dreams were commonly considered a source of divine revelation.”^[56] Indeed, the term “dreaming” (enupniazomai) occurs elsewhere only in Acts 2:17, which refers to dreams of prophecy. Hillyer writes, “The Septuagint employs the same verb to describe false prophets (Deut. 13:2, 5, 6; Isa. 56:10; Jer. 23:25; 34:9; 36:8). Jude is therefore referring to men who falsely claim to have visionary revelations to justify their teaching and actions.”^[57] Their visions, prophecies, and dreams were rejecting the faith given “once for all” (v.3), which is the apostolic message and gospel. Thus, we agree with dynamic translations that capture this better: “[Men] who claim authority from their dreams” (NLT) or “[Men] on the strength of their dreams” (NIV).

The order of operations is quite important for these false teachers: First, they reject biblical revelation in favor of their own “prophetic dreams.” Next, it leads to moral depravity and a corrupt life.

“Defile the flesh.” The term “defile” (miaino) could refer to ceremonial or moral defilement (BDAG, p.650). It most likely refers to sexual immorality. At least, it “often designates sexual sin in the Old Testament.”^[58] Since it is the “flesh” that is defiled, it isn’t hard to decide which meaning Jude has in mind.

“Reject authority.” This could refer to their rejection of the Lordship of Jesus from verse 4 (“deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”), or it could refer to the angels mentioned in the immediate context. Green^[59] understands this to refer to rejecting the authority of Jesus, because this has been the context since verse 4. The mention of “reviling angelic majesties” comes only after the rejection of King Jesus first.

“Revile angelic majesties.” Jude literally uses the term “glories” (doxa) rather than the term “angels” (angeloi). Translators rightly translate this as “angelic majesties” because of the context which refers to Michael the archangel (v.9) and the parallel passage in 2 Peter 2:10-11, where Peter explicitly uses “angels” (angeloi).

In what way did the false teachers revile angels? Literally, they blasphemed these angels (blasphēmeō). Green writes, “Judaism saw the angels as mediators of the Mosaic Law (Acts 7:38, 53; Heb. 2:2; Jubilees i:27-29) who watched over its observance. It is hardly surprising that libertines should speak slightingly of guardians of the Law.”^[60] It could also be that the “heretics’ rhetorical strategy was to exalt their own honor and status even at the expense of angelic beings.”^[61] Another view is that the false teachers rejected these angels because angels will “play a major role on the day of judgment,”^[62] and these false teachers reviled the concept of judgment.

(Jude 9) “But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’”

Michael is called “the great angel” (Dan. 12:1 LXX). Yet, this verse may imply that Satan is an even higher-ranking angel than Michael. On the other hand, it could simply show that Michael—the archangel—didn’t rebuke Satan on his own authority, but on God’s. This is the same way that the believer puts on the armor of God to battle Satan—not deferring to her own strength of savvy (Eph. 6:10-18). Regardless, this sounds like Michael and Satan were not engaged in a “power encounter,” but in some sort of “legal dispute.”^[63] Truth was at the center of their battle.

“The Lord rebuke you!” Michael refused to give a “railing judgment” (blasphēmeō), which is the same term used of the false teachers in verse 8 (“revile angelic majesties”). By not “pronouncing… judgment,” Michael “left the judgment of Satan in God’s hands, asking God to finally judge him.”^[64] Michael’s language is almost identical to Zechariah 3:2, where we read, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

Why does Jude appeal to this example of Michael? The false teachers were blaspheming angelic authorities through their prophetic dreams and visions. Jude’s point is that even Michael (an archangel!) refused to blaspheme Satan (the worst angel!), and instead, Michael deferred to God. This is completely backward from what the false teachers were doing.

(Jude 9, 14-15) Why does Jude quote the Assumption of Moses (v.9) and the Book of Enoch (v.14-15)? This is certainly a difficulty. However, in our best estimation, Jude adapts these quotations to further his case against the false teachers. After citing one OT example after another, it is most likely that Jude’s audience (or enemies) were citing these books. Jude probably chose these works because his opponents were using them. In a sense, he is saying, “Even my opponents would agree with these statements about Satan’s power (v.9) and the judgment of God (v.14).” J.D. Charles paraphrases Jude, when he writes, “For even (your own) Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying… Seen as such, vv. 14-15 would be not so much a citation of 1 Enoch due to Jude’s elevation of the work, as it would be an allusion adapted for Jude’s theological and literary end, an allusion which bears authority due to others’ high regard for Enoch.”^[65] Charles bases this paraphrase on the opening word of verse 14 as being translated “even” (kai), rather than “also” (NASB, ESV) or “now” (NET). This is also the view of Norman Hillyer,^[66] Douglas Moo,^[67] and Michael Green.^[68]

(Jude 10) “But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.”

When we reject God, we don’t become something more than human, but something less. We think that we find our true humanity, but we only become dehumanized. Jude characterizes the false teachers as “unreasoning animals.” By contrast, believers should use their minds to “contend earnestly for the faith” (v.3). These false teachers had no defense of their view. Instead, they simply “[did] not understand” the truth, and willfully blasphemed or “reviled” it.

As a result, these men were “destroyed” (phtheirō). This could refer to judgment in hell (cf. 2 Pet. 2:12), or it could refer to a “deterioration of the inner life” or “ruin” or “corruption” (BDAG, p.1054). Under this latter view, their rejection of the truth led to further licentiousness and debauchery, corrupting them more and more (1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 7:2; 11:3; Eph. 4:22; Rev. 19:2). Eventually, people who reject God become a shell of what they once were.

Cain, Balaam, and Korah

(Jude 11) “Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”

“Woe to them!” A “woe” is like “like an animal cry expressing terror or pain in the face of misfortune or misery.” Indeed, a woe “echoes the misery that overtakes those who suffer the judgment of God.”^[69]

Why does Jude reference Cain? (Gen. 4) Perhaps the false teachers hated the righteous Christians, or even murdered them. John uses the example of Cain to refer to hatred of believers (cf. 1 Jn. 3:11-15), but Jude doesn’t elaborate on this. Instead, these false teachers have “crept in unnoticed” (v.4) and enjoy intimate Christian fellowship (v.12). It seems most likely that the reference to Cain is that of an “archetypical sinner,”^[70] meaning that these false teachers get their origins from the very beginning of jealousy, cruelty, and malicious human sin. It’s also possible that “Cain was the type of unloving man who cared nothing for his brother, and envied him because Abel’s deeds were good and his own bad.”^[71] Or, perhaps Schreiner is right in stating that the use of Cain is meant to refer to “the path of evil” in general.^[72]

Why does Jude reference Balaam? (Num. 22-24) Balaam was a classic prophet for hire. The Moabite king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse Israel for money (Num. 22:6, 11). Yet, Balaam ended up blessing Israel (Num. 24:13). Later, of course, we discover that the prophet Balaam created the idea to have Moabite women sexually seduce the Israelites (Num. 31:16), which brought God’s judgment on the Israelites. But Balaam didn’t get away with anything. God condemned Balaam for cursing Israel and being a diviner (Deut. 23:3-6; Neh. 13:2; Josh. 13:22; 24:9-10). These false teachers were giving their teachings and prophecies “for pay” just like Balaam.

Why does Jude reference Korah? (Num. 16) Korah (along with 250 people) seditiously undermined Moses’ authority (Num. 16:2-4), and God created a test to show who was righteous (Num. 16:5). God reconfirmed Aaron as his leader, and God created an earthquake to swallow up the cadre of people following Korah, sending them straight into Sheol (Num. 16:32-33). In other words, judgment awaits those who despise godly authority and actively undermine it. Moreover, this could be “a hint that the opponents were leaders since Korah had a priestly position but resented the authority of Moses and Aaron over him.”^[73]

Michael Green summarizes Jude’s choice of these three OT figures: “In these three pen-pictures from the Old Testament we see three leading characteristics of the false teachers. Like Cain, they were devoid of love. Like Balaam, they were prepared in return for money to teach others that sin did not matter. Like Korah, they were careless of the ordinances of God and insubordinate to church leaders.”^[74]

(Jude 12-13) “These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; ¹³ wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.”

Jude appeals to a number of metaphors derived from nature to describe these false teachers. Like clouds without rain or trees without fruit, the false teachers like to teach, but their teaching is worthless.

“Hidden reefs” are like unseen rocks under the water that can sink boats. Sailors cannot see these reefs until it’s too late. Similarly, these false teachers were secretly trying to ruin the faith of these Christians.

“Love feasts” were times of fellowship, feasting, and likely the practice of the Lord’s Supper. Blum writes, “The ‘love feasts’ were communal meals in which the early church ate together and observed the Lord’s Supper. ‘Eating with you’ is too tame a translation of syneuōchoumenoi; with its connotation of sumptuous eating, it might better be translated ‘feasting with you.’”^[75]

“Caring for themselves” is literally “shepherding themselves” (poimainontes). This harkens back to the selfish “shepherds” in Ezekiel 34 (cf. Jn. 10).

“Clouds without water” gives imagery that you would expect water to fall from clouds, but these clouds don’t deliver. As a result, the ground is arid, dry, and lifeless. Proverbs states, “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of his gifts falsely” (Prov. 25:14).

“Carried along by winds.” There could be a reference to false teaching here (Eph. 4:14; Heb. 13:9), though we’re not sure.

“Autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted.” Autumn was the time of harvest. Yet, these trees were barren. So, once again, the metaphor shows that the false teachers offered broken expectations.

“Doubly dead” seems to refer to having absolutely “no hope for them.”^[76] It could mean that they are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-3) and also “cut off from their life-giving root, Jesus Christ.”^[77] However, if we follow the metaphor, this would simply mean that the tree was “dead” because it didn’t bear fruit, and it was “doubly dead” because it was “uprooted” as well. To summarize, this means that there was no way the tree was going to bear fruit.

“Wild waves of the sea.” This refers to a stormy sea that is dangerous and uncontrollable. Ancient people boasted of taming the animals, the land, and even other nations. But they couldn’t tame the awesome power of the sea!

“Casting up their own shame like foam.” Green writes, “Jude marks the heretics out as people who have no regard for honor and who toss up their shameful deeds as sea foam.”^[78]

“Wandering stars” (planētēs) is the root word for our modern word “planets.” The cognate of this word meant “error” or “wandering” from the truth (planē). It isn’t that the false teachers are merely in error, but that they draw others into their “wandering” (asteres).

“For whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.” This is similar to the place reserved for fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4). This place is “reserved” (tēreō) for judgment which is parallel to the angels being kept in judgment (v.6).

1 Enoch

(Jude 14-15) “It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, ¹⁵ to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.’”

It’s our view that Jude cites a portion of this pseudepigraphic work because the false teachers affirmed its authority. Therefore, Jude cites their own work against them.

“Ungodly… ungodly… ungodly… ungodly…” Jude refers to “ungodly” people four times in just one verse! He is really pouring on the criticism of these false teachers. Specifically, he states that they will be judged for “all the harsh things which [they] have spoken against [God].” Thus, Jude is citing 1 Enoch to show that even this non-biblical source agrees that false teachers will face judgment for their false teaching.

(Jude 9, 14-15) Why does Jude quote the Assumption of Moses (v.9) and the Book of Enoch (v.14-15)? In our best estimation, Jude adapts these quotations to further his case against the false teachers. After citing one OT example after another, it is most likely that Jude’s audience (or enemies) were citing these books. Jude probably chose these works because his opponents were using them. In a sense, he is saying, “Even my opponents would agree with these statements about Satan’s power (v.9) and the judgment of God (v.14).” J.D. Charles paraphrases Jude, when he writes, “For even (your own) Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying… Seen as such, vv. 14-15 would be not so much a citation of 1 Enoch due to Jude’s elevation of the work, as it would be an allusion adapted for Jude’s theological and literary end, an allusion which bears authority due to others’ high regard for Enoch.”^[79] Charles bases this paraphrase on the opening word of verse 14 as being translated “even” (kai), rather than “also” (NASB, ESV) or “now” (NET). This is also the view of Norman Hillyer,^[80] Douglas Moo,^[81] and Michael Green.^[82]

(Jude 16) “These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.”

“Grumblers.” One of the signs of a false teacher is to grumble against God. The term “grumblers” (gongysmon) is an onomatopoeia (i.e. the word sounds like what it’s describing).^[83]

“Finding fault.” Because false teachers reject grace, they don’t extend grace to anyone else.

“Flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.” These false teachers were in the “business of religion,”^[84] but they were completely “ungodly” (v.15).

Jude’s Application

Jude stops citing prophecy at this point. Now, he directly addresses his audience once again. He uses the word “beloved,” which connects us with verse 3, giving us an inclusio with the beginning of the letter (cf. v.20). He goes on to give these Christians five areas of application.

1. What do these Christians need? SCRIPTURE

What does Jude offer these believers to help them fend off the onslaught of false teachers who are infiltrating their churches? Does he suggest a teaching magisterium? A pope or a bishop? Some sort of catechism? No. Jude tells them to return to the Scriptures…

(Jude 17-18) “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, ¹⁸ that they were saying to you, ‘In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.’”

We shouldn’t fight false teachers primarily on our own savvy or cleverness. Instead, we need to take our stand on the firm foundation of Scripture (i.e. the apostles’ words). This is the best evidence for thinking that Jude drew his material from 2 Peter. After all, Jude cites 2 Peter 3:2, and he attributes this to the “apostles.”

Jude identifies these false teachers “in the last time,” but this was common for NT authors to do (Mt. 7:15-20; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 1 Jn. 2:18, 22; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 4:3-4). While the false teachers brought new revelations and dreams (v.8), Jude notes that their existence was predicted by the apostles. In other words, the apostles had the true revelation, which was expressed in predictive prophecy.

(Jude 19) “These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.”

False teachers like to create divisions in the church. They’ll do anything to divide believers so that they can hive off a following of their own. But God takes a strong stance against those who try to poison the unity of the church (1 Cor. 3:17). God will defend his church as the Good Shepherd. Yet, sometimes, divisions are necessary. Paul writes, “I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. ¹⁹ For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you” (1 Cor. 11:18-19). If a person leaves fellowship by following a false teacher, this tells us a lot about their faith and character. While we should certainly fight for each one of these precious people, we should recognize that divisions will come. Sadly, some of the causalities of this division were those who were “doubting” (v.22).

2. What do these Christians need? PRAYER

(Jude 20) “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit.”

The false teachers were trying to separate the church with schisms, but Jude tells them to build each other up in their faith. The foundation of the church is their “most holy faith” that was “once for all handed down to the saints” (v.3). This doesn’t refer to our personal, subjective faith. Rather, it refers to “the body of teachings” and “the doctrine of the church.”^[85]

“Praying in the Holy Spirit.” This is in contrast to the false teachers who are “devoid of the Spirit” (v.19). This doesn’t refer to speaking in tongues. Rather, Paul’s instruction serves as a good parallel: “With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints” (Eph. 6:18).

3. What do these Christians need? GOD’S LOVE

(Jude 21) “Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.”

In verse 1, Jude stated that the believers were “the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.” Green notes, “In the present verse he turns the indicative of their existence into an imperative as he calls them to ‘keep’ themselves ‘in the love of God.’”^[86] Here, the key to conquering licentiousness is not by keeping a list of moral imperatives—as instructive as these are in defining right and wrong. Rather, the key to a transformed life is to keep oneself in “the love of God.” God’s grace and love are what motivate a transformed life.

How do we keep ourselves in the love of God? The participles flow from this central imperative. This means that the way to keep ourselves in the love of God is to (1) build our faith, (2) pray, and (3) anticipate Jesus’ Second Coming.^[87]

“Waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.” Green^[88] understands this to refer to the return of Jesus at his Second Coming.

4. What do these Christians need? PATIENCE FOR DOUBTERS

(Jude 22) “And have mercy on some, who are doubting.”

With all of the fighting with false teachers, we might become exhausted, hardened, and cynical toward people. This is particularly the case for those who are struggling with their faith. Jude warns us against this (see comments on James 1:6 “Is it a sin to doubt?”).^[89]

Just as they had received “mercy” from Jesus (v.21), they should extend “mercy” to doubters. To be clear, Jude clearly contrasts the false teachers from the doubters. The former are willful sinners, while the latter are confused sinners who need patience and “mercy.” Of course, it is difficult to discern doubt from unbelief, and this may be why Jude writes to have mercy on some (not all) who are doubting. Some doubt can be a guise for unbelief.

5. What do these Christians need? EVANGELISM

(Jude 23) “Save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.”

“Save others, snatching them out of the fire.” Many Christians get so focused on battling false teaching that they forget about our mission to reach lost and lonely people. We could refute false teachers all day and still not win a single person to Christ. This could be a powerful ploy of the Enemy. Thus, our focus should always focus on our the Great Commission—not just debating with false teachers.

The word “snatching” (harpasate) is a forceful word. Indeed, it is the word used for how the church will be rescued and “caught up” by Jesus (1 Thess. 4:17). The imagery is that a person is falling into judgment, and the believer moves with speed and strength to catch them before they fall headlong into it. Believers should have “forceful and swift action to rescue those who have come under the sway of the heretics’ teaching.”^[90]

“On some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.” These people are “those who have been persuaded by the heretics and posture themselves over against the traditional view of the faith.”^[91] We might refer to these as “casualties of war,” rather than active combatants. Since they are still able to be won over, Jude counsels mercy toward such people.

“Garment polluted by the flesh.” Just like the mention of “snatching them from the fire” (Zech. 3:2), this could also harken back to Zechariah (Zech. 3:4). The “garment” (chitōna) refers to “the inner garment, worn next to the skin.”^[92] This is in contrast to the outer garment or toga (himation). The “stain” could be a metaphorical stain (cf. Eph. 5:27; 2 Pet. 2:13), just as the “flesh” could metaphorically refer to a person’s sinful nature (Rom. 7:18, 25; 8:4-7; Gal. 5:13, 24; Col. 2:23). Earlier, we argued that “defiling the flesh” (v.8) referred to sexual immorality. Thus, the idea seems to be that we should hate the sexual immorality—even as we try to help the person who is committing it (i.e. “Hate the sin, not the sinner”). This is similar to Galatians 6:1, where Paul writes that we should “restore” those caught in sin without becoming “tempted” ourselves. Michael Green comments, “They are to have pity upon even the most abandoned heretic, but to exercise great care while getting alongside him lest they themselves become defiled. They are to retain their hatred of sin even as they love the sinner.”^[93]

Conclusion: God will help us to persevere

Jude has said enough to this church. He concludes by focusing on God’s role in helping us to persevere. Michael Green writes, “It is a dangerous thing to live for Christ in an atmosphere of false teaching and seductive morals. It is a hazardous thing to try to rescue men for the gospel out of such an environment. If you get too near the fire, it will burn you; if you get too near the garment stained by the flesh, it will defile you. Is withdrawal the answer, then? No. Advance against the forces of evil, face the dangers involved, so long as you are strong in the Lord’s might. Such is the thrust, and the context, of Jude’s final verses.”^[94]

(Jude 24) “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy.”

We need to remember that all of us (including the false teachers) will one day stand in front of Christ to give an account. Believers, however, will stand “blameless with great joy.” The reason for our joy will be the fact that we are found blameless because of Jesus’ work.

(Jude 25) “To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.”

“Glory, majesty, dominion and authority.” The false teachers spurned “majesty” and “authority” (Jude 8). Thus, they were ultimately rejecting God himself.

“Before all time.” This verse seems to imply that time itself had a beginning, but that God existed in a timeless state before he created space-time. Green writes, “The attributes of God that Jude has described and praised are not mutable characteristics but are inherently God’s throughout all time. In a world of change and decay, this declaration of the immutable nature of God is more than the human mind can comprehend.”^[95]

Questions for Reflection

Read the entire letter. What do we learn about false teachers from this book? What characteristics do they have?

Read verses 5-16. Why does Jude cite so many OT passages in the body of his letter?

Read verses 22-23. Why does Jude counsel a softer approach with those mentioned in these verses? Why does he advocate mercy for this specific group of people?

Read verse 21. What does it look like to keep yourself in the love of God?

What might be some ways to guard ourselves from false teaching today? (Either as individuals or as a group of Christians)

^[1] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 46.

^[2] Bauckham writes, “At no point where he alludes to specific verses of the OT does he echo the language of the LXX. In two of these cases he must depend on the Hebrew text because the Septuagint does not give even the meaning he adopts (v 12: Prov 25:14; v 13: Isa 57:20), while in three other cases his vocabulary notably fails to correspond to that of the LXX (v 11: Num 26:9; v 12: Ezek 34:2; v 23: Amos 4:11; Zech 3:3).” Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 7.

^[3] Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 16.

^[4] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 1.

^[5] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 4.

^[6] Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 14.

^[7] Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 131-133.

^[8] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 12-16.

^[9] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 13.

^[10] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 15.

^[11] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 15.

^[12] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 209.

^[13] Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 8.

^[14] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 17.

^[15] Yet, it should be noted how little Schreiner offers by way of evidence. This is why he is open to several hypotheses (2 Peter using Jude, Jude using 2 Peter, or both authors using a common source). He states that he is merely “inclined” toward the former (p.419). Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 409.

^[16] Emphasis mine. Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 8.

^[17] Emphasis mine. Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 142.

^[18] R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures (Greenville, SC, 1995), 240-241.

[19] Daniel Wallace, “Jude: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.” Bible.org (published June 28, 2004).

^[20] R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures (Greenville, SC, 1995), 240-241.

[21] Daniel Wallace, “Jude: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.” Bible.org (published June 28, 2004).

^[22] Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 14.

^[23] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 5.

^[24] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 5.

^[25] Eccl. Proph. 3. Cited in Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 469.

^[26] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.25.

^[27] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 5.

^[28] Scott Berkun, Confessions of a Public Speaker (Cambridge: O’Reilly Media, 2009), 57.

^[29] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 429.

^[30] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 431.

^[31] Brown writes, “In the LXX eirēnē is almost invariably used to translate the Heb. šālômh.” Brown, C. Vol. 2: New international dictionary of New Testament theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1986. 777. Used about 250x in the LXX.

^[32] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 50.

^[33] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 182.

^[34] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 182.

^[35] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 432.

^[36] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 183.

^[37] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 185.

^[38] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 56.

^[39] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 56.

^[40] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 184.

^[41] Gordon Fee writes, “The Hebrew words are qiḇḇēl/māsar, which appear in rabbinical literature. For example, the Mishnah states, ‘Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue’ (m. Abot 1:1).” Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), p.548.

^[42] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 439.

^[43] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 440.

^[44] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 58.

^[45] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 62.

^[46] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society/ New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), pp.657-658.

^[47] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society/ New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), pp.12-13.

^[48] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 64.

^[49] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 192.

^[50] See footnote. Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 193.

^[51] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 72.

^[52] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 193.

^[53] Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 54.

^[54] Emphasis his. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 452-453.

^[55] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 453.

^[56] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 74.

^[57] Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 247.

^[58] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 456.

^[59] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 76.

^[60] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 195.

^[61] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 77.

^[62] J. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1993), 69. Cited in Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 457.

^[63] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 82.

^[64] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 460.

^[65] Emphasis his. J.D. Charles, “Jude’s Use of Pseudepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy.” New Testament Studies 37: 144.

^[66] Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), p.257.

^[67] Douglas Moo, 2 Peter and Jude. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp.272-274.

^[68] Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity/ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp.192-193.

^[69] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 89.

^[70] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 90.

^[71] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 199.

^[72] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 463.

^[73] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 464.

^[74] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 201.

^[75] Edwin A. Blum, “Jude,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 392.

^[76] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 96.

^[77] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 204.

^[78] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 98.

^[79] Emphasis his. J.D. Charles, “Jude’s Use of Pseudepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy.” New Testament Studies 37: 144.

^[80] Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), p.257.

^[81] Douglas Moo, 2 Peter and Jude. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp.272-274.

^[82] Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity/ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp.192-193.

^[83] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 108.

^[84] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 111.

^[85] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 482.

^[86] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 122.

^[87] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 481.

^[88] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 123.

^[89] Some interpreters hold that this refers to “disputing” (cf. Jude 9), rather than “doubting” (diakrinomenous). Yet, the context of verse 9 is foreign to the current context, and doubting Christians fit well in a setting filled with schism and division. Moreover, Schreiner notes, “In the middle voice, however, the word most commonly means ‘doubting’ or ‘wavering’ in the New Testament (Matt 21:21; Mark 11:23; Acts 10:20; Rom 4:20; 14:23; Jas 1:6). This interpretation also fits with the progression of the text. Jude began with those who were least affected by the intruders. They were affected to the extent that they were beginning to doubt whether the opponents were correct or whether the faith they received at the inception of their Christian life was normative (v. 3).” Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 487-488.

^[90] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 125.

^[91] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 126.

^[92] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 217.

^[93] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 217.

^[94] Emphasis mine. Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 218.

^[95] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 136.