Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

JUDE

(Gk. Ioúdas),

LETTER OF

One of the “Catholic” or “General” Epistles, written to encourage faithfulness in the midst of aberrance; the 26th book in the NT canon.

Literary Structure

There are three discernible types of material in Jude: the admonition (vv. 1-4, 20-25), the description of the opponents, and warning exhortations (the latter two types intermingled in vv. 5-19). Much of the confusion in the history of the interpretation of the epistle is due to failure to distinguish between forthright descriptions of the “ungodly intruders” (v. 4) and the apocalyptical warning exhortations in vv. 5-19. Only by careful attention to Jude’s literary structure can one distinguish accurately these literary warnings from the actual crisis of Jude’s concern.

Clearly Jude is a letter in which midrashic material supports an appeal to faithfulness. In the prologue of vv. 1-4 the salutation appears in conventional epistolary form as a greeting. The normal greeting of Hellenistic correspondence is here supplanted by the whole of v. 2. The shift from the greeting to the exhortation (vv. 3-4) is accomplished by “beloved,” which here, as in vv. 17 and 20, functions as a discourse marker to highlight transition to different material. The literary thrust of the letter is expressed in vv. 3-4 as a literary petition. This vigorous petition finds precise expression in vv. 20-23, where the actual exhortation occurs in several imperatival terms. Clearly vv. 3-4 and 20-23 constitute the literary thrust of the document. Two subordinate invitations in vv. 5-16 and 17-19 to reflect upon pertinent warnings were carefully constructed to focus attention upon the exhortation in vv. 20-23.

In the first of these reminders, Jude draws from the OT and contemporary Jewish literature a few items which state in unmistakable terms the dire consequences of pursuing the course of the opponents. Vv. 5-16 is a midrashic-type commentary on the infamous incident in which the wandering Jews in the desert were destroyed for their unbelief. Woven into this midrashic material are several attempts to link the rebelliousness and fate of the traditional enemies of God with the rebelliousness and fate of these troublesome intruders and those who might opt to defect to their number. These midrashic elaborations clearly state the terrible fate destined for all who pervert the order intended by God, specifically those who reject the Christ, and warn the readers to take seriously the admonitions in vv. 20-23.

In the second reminder (vv. 17-19), Jude appeals to earlier apostolic warnings that such a situation as this was imminent. He attempts to identify these “ungodly intruders” with those whom the apostles anticipated and to dissuade anyone inclined to follow them.

Sources

Jude evidently placed value not only on Jewish texts now viewed as canonical, but also on apocryphal texts. While this may reflect Jude’s own understanding, there is reason to believe that the choice of texts also reflects an attempt to use texts the readers would find convincing. In his preparations for a treatise on “salvation” (v. 3), certainly Jude would have encountered such texts. Particularly abundant are similarities to 1 Enoch, as well as passages in T. Napthali, Jubilees, and 3 Macc. The triad of references in vv. 5-7 to rebellion and fate may have been suggested by Sir. 16:6-14. Jude’s references to the archangel Michael (v. 9) may be to a Jewish legend in the Assumption of Moses.

That portions of Jude and 2 Peter are similar is obvious. While it was once thought that Jude was dependent upon 2 Peter, it is now more common to view 2 Peter as dependent upon Jude. The material Jude has in common with 2 Peter occurs in a different context and lacks the verbal precision one encounters in the Synoptic Gospels. The material common to Jude and 2 Peter could well derive from a common source such as Sir. 16:6-14.

The Opponents

In deducing the characteristics of Jude’s opponents, it is important to refrain from infusing into the picture elements from 2 Peter or other sources and to distinguish between literary apocalyptical warnings and historical assertions of their character in Jude. The “ungodly intruders” can then be seen as ungodly; licentious; rejecting Christ; in delusion, sexually improper, rejecting lordship, and mocking the spiritual domain; insidiously attending the love feasts where they influence the faithful; carousing together unashamedly; taking care only of themselves; disenchanted; obdurate; verbally harsh; flattering others for selfish advantage; divisive; and unspiritual. Thus these intruders have every appearance of historicity, and there is no reason why the Epistle of Jude should not be taken as a genuine attempt to counter their sinister influence.

Date

The date of the epistle has been variously estimated, from the 50s to the 2nd century. Most consider a late-1st-century date to be probable, classifying Jude as an “early Catholic” work, presupposing a certain Gnosticism, and deducing that in v. 17 the writer is looking back upon an earlier period now past. However, this reference is to earlier apostolic warnings, suggesting an earlier rather than later date. Moreover, the character of Jude’s opponents is not a developed Gnosticism, so no late date is necessary.

The Epistle of Jude evidences certain primitive features and contains nothing that warrants a late date. It evidently belongs to an early Palestinian apocalyptic-type Jewish Christianity. The letter could very well be dated in the 50s, and very possibly could even be one of the earliest NT documents.

Authorship

As the epistle is attributed to “Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,” the author has been identified traditionally as Judas, the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Eusebius HE 3.19.1–20.6). Since reference to one’s identification is usually to one’s father, this reference to a brother implies that this James must have been quite well known. In the early Church, only James the Lord’s brother could have been called simply James without ambiguity.

Some suggest that the letter is pseudepigraphical and attributed to Jude by a later writer. Others counter that Jude was too obscure to have served as an authoritative pseudonym. The appeal to a blood-relationship to Jesus would have been taken by readers as an appeal to authority, but the appeal to a blood-relationship to James, while it would have carried weight, is secondary to the appeal to being “a servant of Jesus Christ.”

Little is known of Judas, the brother of Jesus. Presumably he was not a follower of Jesus during his ministry (Mark 3:21, 31), but became a believer after the Resurrection (Acts 1:14). If Jude was a younger brother of Jesus, born ca. a.d. 10, he could have had grandsons about age 30 in a.d. 90, when he was about 80. That Jude could have written this letter during the mid-1st century is entirely possible.

However, linguistically the Greek of the letter is thought to be much too good to be attributable to a Galilean Jew of peasant background. The author is certainly a Semitic speaker who used the Hebrew OT and read the book of Enoch in Aramaic, but his facility with Greek is very good, especially his vocabulary. Certainly this level of Greek usage was not at all uncommon in Palestine during the 1st century. If Jude’s missionary work took him among Greek-speaking Jews, even in Palestine, there is no convincing reason why he could not have acquired such competence in Greek.

Certainly the exegetical procedure used, significant use of Jewish pseudepigraphical literature, and the Jewish apocalyptical perspective are entirely consistent with authorship by a Palestinian Jewish-Christian of the first generation of Christians, as was Judas the brother of Jesus.

Destination

Nothing can be deduced for certain regarding the destination of the epistle. The formal opening (vv. 1-2) indicates that it is intended as a genuine letter, and both its raison d’etre (v. 4) and the particular characteristics of the opponents indicate that it is not a general letter to all Christians, but an occasional document written to a specific church or group of churches regarding an actual problem.

Both the identity of the author and the significant use of Jewish apocalyptic to illustrate his points indicate that the recipients are probably Jewish Christians. Since it is written in good Greek with no elements of translation, it is not at all improbable that the audience is a predominantly Jewish-Christian community in the Greco-Roman world.

Message

As stated in the introduction (vv. 3-4), the purpose of the epistle is to exhort the readers to remain faithful. Specifically, in view of christological aberrance and licentiousness, they are to “contend for the faith” (vv. 20-23). Having been warned that they must not become like the long-standing enemies of God in Jewish literature and tradition, the readers are told what they can do to solidify their own position (vv. 20-21) and what they can do to assist those of their number inclined to defect to the aberration in thought and life-style characteristic of the “ungodly intruders” (vv. 22-23). While the opponents are denounced decisively, Christian love and patience should be exercised with those Christians who waver between the faithful and the intruders, all the while maintaining vigilance so as not to be contaminated by ungodly influences. The masterful doxology (vv. 24-25), long lifted from this context for liturgical reasons, actually is a prayer that God will preserve the readers from disaster in this life and enable them to realize their eschatological hopes.

Bibliography. R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50 (Waco, 1983); “The Letter of Jude: An Account of Research,” in ANRW II.25.5 (Berlin, 1986), 3791-826; C. D. Osburn, “Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville, 1992), 287-319; D. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. SBLDS 104 (Atlanta, 1988).

Carroll D. Osburn

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

JUDE

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)