By James M. Rochford

Authorship

Jude was the half-brother of Jesus and the full-brother of James, who wrote the book of James (Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3). Apparently, Jude didn’t believe in Jesus during his ministry (Jn. 7:5), but he did later on (Acts 1:14). Jewish men would usually identify themselves by mentioning their father—not their brother.[1] This demonstrates that James was an influential figure in the church—far more important than Joseph.[2]

Therefore, Jude was a Jewish believer in Jesus. Richard Bauckham argues that Jude may have come from Palestine, because he doesn’t cite the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).^[3] Of course, this would fit with the idea that Jude stayed in Israel, alongside his brother James. Bauckham writes, “We should notice that 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.”^[4]

Jude’s name (Ioudas) is the same word that is translated “Judah,” and the author was “Jewish since in ancient literature and inscriptions ‘Jude’ never appears as the name of a gentile.”[5] 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 not much more.[6]

Some critics argue that Jude was pseudepigraphic (i.e. a later author using a fake name). 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.”^[7] 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.”

Audience: Primarily Jewish Christians in Israel

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 Alexander 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, because Jude wasn’t confronting the same heresy as Clement (who lived over 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 cites verse 8]” (Letter to Theodorus).

Did Jude write to Palestinian Jews? We agree with Bauckham^[8] and Green[9] that the audience consisted of primarily Jewish Christians in Israel—and perhaps in the Jerusalem church. Jude refers to “James,” who was the leader of the Jerusalem church, and he feels no need to elaborate, because his audience knew 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 high Greek if his audience knew Greek as a second language. Green retorts that this letter could have been written to the highly educated, or perhaps, many of the Jews in Palestine were Hellenistic Jews, whose native tongue was Greek (Acts 2:5-11; 6:1, 9).[10]

OBJECTION #2. 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 lusted—just like anyone else! 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).

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.”[11] By having men and women together for Christian fellowship, this could have created unique temptation 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.”[12] 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. Therefore, one is copying from the other:

But who copied from whom? Most scholars hold that 2 Peter copied from Jude. These would include Bauckham^[13] and Green.[14] Indeed, it is the “judgment of most modern scholars, that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude.”^[15] 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. Typically, 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 write, “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.”^[16]

Second, 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.”

We agree with scholar R. Laird Harris who 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.^[17]

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 (see “Introduction to 1 & 2 Peter”). We affirm that Peter wrote 2 Peter, and understand this as the letter to which Jude refers in verses 17-18.

Date

Unlike Paul’s letters, Jude is very difficult to date.

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.

The difficulty is that this would mean that Jude was writing to the church in Israel during the Jewish War (AD 66-70). Yet he doesn’t mention this catastrophic event or, at the very least, any teaching on suffering.

Further complications arise. 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 James typical title 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.”^[18]

The data are simply confusing and conflicting, and honestly, we aren’t sure when to date this book. If we had to guess, we would place the date sometime after AD 70. The difficulty with this view is that there is an argument from silence for the Jewish War and for the death of James. However, two counter arguments could be made. First, Jude could be writing from Jerusalem to the outlying territories of Israel. He would be facing the brunt of the war, but the others would not. Or, secondly, we should observe that Jude wrote that he intended to write on “our common salvation” (Jude 1). What changed his mind? We don’t know, but perhaps, these historical events in Israel could’ve altered his subject.

Canonicity

Jude’s letter was “accepted widely in the West and in Alexandria,” but the “Syrian churches were slow to acknowledge its canonicity.”[19] Yet this is common to the respective approaches in Alexandria and Syria. Alexandria allowed more books, and “culled” the list, while Syria was far more conservative and only later added books that passed scrutiny. In fact, the Syrian church didn’t accept Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation until the 6^th century!

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.”[20]

The Muratorian Canon (AD 200) affirms the canonicity of Jude.

Clement of Alexandra (AD 200) wrote a commentary on Jude.

Origen (AD 250) recognized that the letter was disputed (Commentary on John 19.6), 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.”[21] 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.”[22] Incidentally, Tertullian solved this problem by claiming that 1 Enoch was inspired Scripture! In fact, he cited Jude as evidence for the inspiration of 1 Enoch (1 Enoch: De Cultu Feminarum 1.3.).

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). But he chooses 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. While Paul identified James as the brother of Jesus, James himself self-identified as the “slave” of Jesus (Jas. 1:1).

Our identity is wrapped up “in God,” not just in Jesus.

To be “kept” (tetērēmenois) by Christ is to “to retain in custody, keep watch over, guard” or “to cause a state, condition, or activity to continue, keep, hold, reserve, preserve” (BDAG). This is in the passive voice, which implies that this should be rendered “kept by Jesus Christ.” In other words, Jesus is keeping us close to him, just as well need to keep ourselves in the love of Christ (Jude 21). Divine agency and human responsibility are in balance here.

This is in contrast to the heretics mentioned below, who are not kept for Jesus.

(Jude 2) “May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.” It’s through our identity that God delivers his peace, mercy, and love.

Peace (eirene) refers to a “state of concord, peace, harmony” (BDAG). In the OT, this is the word translated into Greek from the Hebrew shalom. Brown writes, “In the LXX eirēnē is almost invariably used to translate the Heb. šālômh.”^[23] It could be the inner peace given to us by Christ (Rom. 15:13; Phil. 4:6-7; Jn. 14:27; 16:33) or peace between believers (Rom. 14:19; Eph. 4:3; 1 Pet. 3:11; Mt. 5:9). Most likely, it is referring to “peace” from the factions occurring because of 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.”[24] 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 Septuagint used for translating the Hebrew hesed (“loyal love”).

(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.” Jude states that he was trying to make time to write to this church (or churches?). He initially intended to write a letter about their “common salvation.” Likely, he was going to write about theology and the nuts and bolts of Christianity.

However, he changed directions, and he wrote about “contending earnestly for the faith.” False teachers had entered the church (v.4), and hence, Jude needed to exhort these believers to defend their faith and their church.

To “contend” (epagonizesthai) is the root for “agony” or “agonize.” This was an athletic competition, warfare (Plutarch, Fabius Maximus 23.2.3), virtuous living (Philo, Virtues 26 § 142.1), or debate (Philo, Eternity 14 § 70.1).[25] It means to “exert intense effort on behalf of something, contend. When used in athletic imagery, the dating dependent on it indicates for the most part either the one against whom one is contending…, or the person or thing upon whom (which) one depends for support in rivalry” (BDAG). Jude could all of these connotations in mind, as these believer go to face the false teachers of their day.

“The faith…” This isn’t our personal and private faith, but the faith (cf. Gal. 1:23; Acts 6:7; Eph. 4:5). This refers to the Christian faith writ large. It can be understood as “what the church proclaims, [namely] the gospel.”[26]

“once for all handed down to the saints…” This is the language used by Pharisees of passing down sacred teaching. Paul uses it for passing down or “delivering” the gospel message to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3).[27]

(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 deny 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 which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable, self-abandonment” (BDAG). Paul had been accused of teaching licentiousness (Rom. 3:8), but true grace doesn’t teach this (Rom. 6:1-2).

These false teachers deny the PERSON of Jesus. They “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude doesn’t elaborate on exactly how they deny the person of Jesus. It’s possible that they simply are denying Jesus through their teaching of licentiousness (cf. Titus 1:16).

They highly covert—not overt. No false teacher ever enters your life announcing, “Hi! I’m here to ruin your spiritual life!” Instead, they had “crept in unnoticed.” 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 (v.12). They did this through “flattering people” (v.16).

(Jude 4) Condemned beforehand?

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.”[28] As a result, they faced judgment.

Green cites various extra-biblical sources that utilize the Exodus generation, the angels of Genesis 6, and Sodom and Gomorrah as key examples of God’s judgment (Sir. 16:7-10; 3 Macc. 2:4-7; M. Sanhedrin 10.3).[29] More importantly, this fits with Peter’s mention of the fallen angels, Noah’s era, and Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet. 2:4-9). This shows that these periods of biblical history were well-known to be particularly evil.

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 Exodus generation. While the Israelites had seen God move miraculously to rescue them, they quickly forgot 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.” Bruce Metzger states, “[Jesus is] admittedly… the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses.”[30] Furthermore, this reading passes one of the key canons of textual criticism—namely, the “more difficult reading is to be preferred.”[31] (See the NET note for an explanation of the manuscript evidence)

This is a very good argument for the deity of Christ, because 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.”[32] Yet Jude says that Jesus was the one to save the people in the Exodus. Hence, Jesus is Yahweh!

“After saving a people… subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.” The false teachers were claiming to be members of the “saved” people, while 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.

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 of forfeiting God’s grace, they were placed under judgment (see Genesis 6:4 Who or what were the Nephilim?). They are “kept” (tetērēken) in prison just like a prisoner is “kept” in prison (Mt. 27:36, 54; Acts 12:5; 16:23). Similarly, the heretics were claiming to be in God’s grace, but they were willfully choosing for serious sexual immorality. Just as these fallen angels were “kept in eternal bonds under darkness for judgment,” so too, for the false teachers “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.” God brings people under judgment for licentiousness like this. Some understand the “strange flesh” to refer to angels, while the context of Genesis 19 would imply men having sex with other men. After all, the men in Genesis 19 did not know that Lot’s visitors were angels.

“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 cave man definition, it would mean “from (or out of) sexual immorality.” The LXX uses it 41 times. In the LXX, it can mean “either to indulge in sexual relations” or “to indulge in acts of unfaithfulness with respect to God.”[33]

Notice the similarity with verse 6: If the angels of Genesis 6 broke God’s boundaries by having sex with humans (v.6), then the humans of Genesis 19 broke God’s boundaries by trying to have sex with angels (v.7).[34]

(Jude 8) “Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.” The term “dreaming” (enupniazomai) doesn’t refer to the English expression, “He’s just a dreamer!” Instead, “Dreams were commonly considered a source of divine revelation.”[35] Indeed, the term 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.”^[36] Their visions, prophecies, and dreams were rejecting the faith given “once for all” (v.3), which is the apostolic message and gospel.

Now, notice the order: First, they reject biblical revelation in favor of their own “prophetic dreams.” Next, it leads to moral depravity and practice…

“Defile the flesh” refers to sexual immorality. The term “defile” (miaino) could refer to ceremonial or moral defilement (BDAG). Since it is the “flesh” that is defiled, it isn’t hard to decide which meaning Jude has in mind!

“Reject authority…” 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[37] 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 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 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.”^[38] It could also be that the “heretics’ rhetorical strategy was to exalt their own honor and status even at the expense of angelic beings.”[39]

Does this have something to do with how Michael dealt with angelic majesties (i.e. Satan) in the next verse?

We need to remember that “majesty” truly belongs to Christ—not angels (v.25).

(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 a 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. Green writes, “Jude understands the contention between the devil and Michael as a legal dispute.”[40]

Specifically, 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,” Jude was leaving this legal case in God’s hands—not his own. 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)?

(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! Jude refers to 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.

Hence, they 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, ruin, corrupt” (BDAG). Under this latter view, their rejection of the truth led to further licentiousness and debauchery, corrupting them (1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 7:2; 11:3; Eph. 4:22; Rev. 19:2).

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.”[41]

Why does 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 either. 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,”[42] meaning that these false teachers get their origins from the very beginning of jealous, cruel, and malicious human sin.

Why does he reference Balaam? (Num. 22-24) Balaam was a classic prophet for hire. The Moabite king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse Israel (Num. 22:6) for money (Num. 22:11). Balaam ended up blessing Israel (Num. 24::13), but later we discover that he created the idea to have Moabite women sexually seduce the Israelites (Num. 31:16). Later, Balaam was condemned as 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 he 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 created an earthquake and swallowed up the cadre of people following Korah, sending them straight into Sheol! (Num. 16:32-33) Jude uses the aorist tense (“perished”) to show the certainty of the false teachers’ judgment.

(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 hidden rocks under water when you’re sailing. You can’t see them, but they wreck your boat all the same.

“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.’”^[43]

“…caring for themselves…” is literally “shepherding themselves” (poimainontes).

“…clouds without water…” The imagery is that you’d expect water, but these clouds don’t deliver. 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 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, so again, they would expect to have fruit on these trees. So too, the false teachers gave broken expectations. “Doubly dead” could refer to absolutely “no hope for them.”[44]

“…wild waves of the sea…” This refers to a stormy sea, which is dangerous and uncontrollable. Ancient people boasted of taming the animals, the land, and even other countries. But they couldn’t tame 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.”[45]

“…wandering stars…” (planētēs) is the root for “planets.” The cognate of this word meant “error” or “wandering” from the truth (planē). They aren’t simply in error, but 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). They are “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 the “ungodly” four times! He is really pouring on the criticism of these false teachers.

(Jude 9, 14-15) Why does Jude quote the Assumption of Moses (v.9) and the Book of Enoch (v.14-15)?

(Jude 16) “These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.” 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).[46]

They also point out problems with God (“finding fault”). It is unbelievably arrogant for guilty sinners to find the righteous God at fault! The false teachers were in the “business of religion,”[47] but they were completely “ungodly” (v.15).

Inclusio: Jude ends where he began

Jude stops citing prophecy to make his case, and instead, he addresses his audience again. He uses the word “beloved,” which connects us with verse 3, and how he started his letter (cf. v.20).

(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, but instead by remembering and appealing to Scripture (i.e. the apostles’ words). This is the best evidence for thinking that Jude drew his material from 2 Peter. This is a citation of 2 Peter 3:2, which Jude attributes to the “apostles.”

Jude identifies these false teachers “in the last time,” but this was common for NT authors to do (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. God takes a strong stance against those who try to poison the unity of the church (1 Cor. 3:17). The causalities of their division could be those who are “doubting” (v.22). These people are definitely not Christians, because they are “devoid of the Spirit.” Paul writes, “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom. 8:9).

(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).

“…praying in the Holy Spirit.” This is in contrast to the false teachers who are “devoid of the Spirit” (v.19).

(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.’”[48] Notice that the key to licentiousness is not keeping a list of rules, but keeping oneself in “the love of God.” God’s grace and love are what motivate a transformed life.

“…waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.” Green[49] understands this to refer to the return of Jesus at his Second Coming.

(Jude 22) “And have mercy on some, who are doubting.” With all of the fighting with false teachers, we might become hardened toward those who are struggling with their faith. Jude warns us against this (see comments on James 1:6 “Is it a sin to doubt?”). Just as they had received “mercy” from Jesus (v.21), they should extend “mercy” to doubters. Notice that Jude contrasts the false teachers from the doubters. One is a willful sinner, while the other is a confused sinner who needs 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.

(Jude 23) “Save others, snatching them out of the fire…” Many Christians get so focused on battling false teaching that they forget about our mission to the lost. Our focus should be focused on our lost world—not just debating with false teachers. The word “snatching” (harpasate) is a forceful word. Indeed, it is the word used for the rescue of the church being “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. Believers should have “forceful and swift action to rescue those who have come under the sway of the heretics’ teaching.”[50]

“…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.”[51] 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 these people.

What is the “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.”^[52] 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 be literally referring to a person’s body or metaphorically referring to their 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. The idea seems to be that we should hate the sexual immorality—even as we try to help the person who is committing it (“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.

Jude turns to God

Jude has said enough to this church. Now, he needs to say some words to God on behalf of these believers.

(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.” This verse seems to imply that time itself had a beginning, but that God existed in a timeless state before he created time itself. 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.”[53]

Discussion questions

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

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

What does it look like to keep yourself in the love of God? (v.21)

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), p.46.

[2] Incidentally, this could also add to the case the Joseph had died before the boys had grown up.

^[3] 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).” Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 7). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

^[4] Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 16). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

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

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

^[7] Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 14). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

^[8] Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 131-133). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

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

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

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

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

^[13] Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 8). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

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

^[15] Emphasis mine. Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 8). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

^[16] Emphasis mine. Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 142). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[17] Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures. Greenville, SC, 1995. 240-241.

^[18] Bauckham, R. J. (1998). 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 50, p. 14). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

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

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

[21] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.25.

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

[23] 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.

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

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

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

[27] 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.

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

[29] Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), p.62-63.

[30] 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.

[31] 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.

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

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

[34] I am indebted to Green for this insight. Gene L. Green, Jude and Second Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), p.72.

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

^[36] Hillyer, N. (2011). 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (p. 247). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

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

^[38] Green, M. (1987). 2 Peter and Jude: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 18, p. 195). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

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

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

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

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

^[43] Blum, E. A. (1981). Jude. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation (Vol. 12, p. 392). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^[52] Green, M. (1987). 2 Peter and Jude: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 18, p. 217). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

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