Original Meaning

MOST NEW TESTAMENT letters (especially Paul’s) move into a thanksgiving and prayer after the initial salutation and greetings. But Jude skips these points, getting right to the heart of what his letter is about. In these two verses, he explains the occasion and theme of this letter.1 The occasion is the intrusion into the readers’ Christian assemblies of false teachers, impious people living and propagating a heretical form of the faith (v. 4). To meet the needs of this occasion, Jude focuses on a single theme: maintaining the truth of the Christian faith as it has been handed down from Christ and the apostles (v. 3).

We have little evidence about who these false teachers were. Jude implies that they claimed to be Christian, for they abused the grace of God in Christ (v. 4). How they did this, we are not sure. But we are sure about their immoral lifestyle, which is the heart of his critique. In verse 4, Jude calls them “godless” (asebeis) men, a word that becomes almost “the keynote of the epistle.”2 Yet Jude’s overall purpose, as verse 3 shows, is not negative. It is positive: to encourage true believers to display godliness in the face of the rampant ungodliness around them.

The word “love” plays a central role in the opening of Jude’s letter: The readers are “loved” by God the Father (v. 1); Jude prays that they may experience that love more and more (v. 2); and now he addresses them as those whom he also loves: “Beloved” (agapetoi; NIV “dear friends”).

In verse 3, Jude explains the situation in which he writes. But we can interpret what he says about this in two different ways. Compare the NRSV and NIV:

NRSV: “Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

NIV: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

The NRSV translation, by using the word “while,” suggests that Jude’s writing about “the salvation we share” and his appeal to contend for the faith refers to the same letter—the one we now have before us. In his letter, Jude is accomplishing both these purposes, for by contending for the faith, his readers will be preserving the salvation they have in common. But the NIV, with the word “although,” suggests a different scenario. Jude’s writing about “the salvation we share” and his appeal to contend for the faith refer to two different letters—the former, one he intended to write, the latter, the one he actually did write (our present letter of Jude).

This second reading is preferable.3 We are to imagine Jude preparing to write generally and joyfully about the salvation that he and his readers share together4 when he learns about a new and serious threat to his readers’ faith: the false teachers. Consequently, he discards the letter he was about to write in order to warn his readers of this new threat.

The intrusion of these false teachers is what has made it necessary for Jude to “write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” Normally in the New Testament, the word “faith” (pistis) refers to the act of believing, as when we speak of a person’s “faith in Christ.” But in a few places the word refers to the content of what a person believes; see, for instance, Galatians 1:23: “They only heard the report: ‘The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.’ ” Clearly “faith” has this objective meaning here. It describes what Christians believe—such things as Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace through faith, and (especially in Jude’s situation) the holy lifestyle that flows from God’s grace in Christ.

These essentials, Jude claims, are not open to interpretation, for this faith “was once for all entrusted to the saints.” But this faith has come under attack, and so Jude’s readers need to “contend” for it. “Contend” is a strong word. It refers to the exertions of the athlete and is similar to the word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 9:25: “Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.” Paul later applied this same term to his and his coworkers’ energetic defense of the gospel (Col. 1:29; 1 Tim. 4:10; 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7). Thus Jude urges his readers not simply to resist the false teachers’ perversion of the faith; they are actively and energetically to fight for it. Jude himself spells out some of the detailed components of this struggle in verses 20–23.5

Why do Jude’s readers need to “contend for the faith”? Because (note the “for” at the beginning of v. 2) “certain men … have secretly slipped in among you.” “Certain men” has a contemptuous ring; Jude does not bother to name or even to number them.6 Perhaps his scorn arises partly from their manner of working. Rather than straightforwardly opposing the faith, these people pursue their agenda by stealth—they have “wormed their way in,” as the REB puts it.7 It is not that they are hidden from the readers, working in secret so the faithful are not even aware of them. Rather, they hide their real nature and purpose. Jesus warned about “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15)—these false teachers are just such wolves.

Jude leaves us in no doubt about his opinion of these “men.” He says four things about them. (1) Their “condemnation was written about long ago.” Jude here follows the same pattern Peter used when dealing with the false teachers: to pronounce their condemnation immediately after introducing them (see 2 Peter 2:1–4). Much debate surrounds the phrase “written about long ago.” If Jude is using 2 Peter as the basis for his own letter, he may be referring to this passage.8 “Long ago” may seem to make this view impossible, but the Greek word (palai) can mean simply “already” (see Mark 15:44). Still, this is an unusual meaning for the word; and, although I think it possible that Jude is using 2 Peter (see the introduction), I doubt that Jude here refers to this letter.

Another possibility is that Jude is thinking of 1 Enoch, since he quotes from that Jewish pseudepigraphical book in verses 14–16.9 But there seems no reason to focus on 1 Enoch alone when Jude refers to other sources as well. Kelly thinks that Jude may be thinking of the “heavenly tablets,” writings kept in heaven on which were inscribed the names of those who deserved punishment as well as those who deserved to be rewarded.10 The simplest explanation, however, is that Jude introduces the evidence for the false teachers’ condemnation that he will adduce in the rest of the letter. He makes his case by citing from the Old Testament (vv. 5–8, 11), from Jewish traditions (vv. 9, 14–16), and from the teaching of the apostles (vv. 17–18).11 In all these sources, he says, the “condemnation” of these false teachers has long been established.

(2) “They are godless men.” As we noted above, “godless” (asebes) is an important word in Jude (cf. v. 15; also the cognate noun in v. 18). The author sees it as the single best term to describe the men who have secretly slipped in and are threatening the faith. The word connotes a person who is “without religion,” who “fails to worship” (see also Rom. 4:5; 5:6; 1 Tim. 1:9; 1 Peter 4:18; 2 Peter 2:5–6; 3:7). It is broad enough to cover all kinds of sins and errors, but Hellenistic Jews used it especially of irreverence in an ethical sense: “not theoretical atheism, but practical godlessness.”12 Jude clearly applies it in this way, saying almost nothing about the false teachers’ doctrinal errors but a great deal about their immoral lifestyle.

(3) They “change the grace of God into a license for immorality.” The word “immorality” (aselgeia) is another key term that both Peter and Jude use to describe the false teachers. It is a term that connotes especially sins of the flesh: sexual misconduct, drunkenness, gluttony, and so on. As did many before them and many after them, these false teachers twist God’s free forgiveness in Christ into an “open sesame” for sinful behavior. It is as if they said, “Wasn’t it the essence of God’s grace that he took care of our sins completely on the cross? How, then, can there be any penalty for sin any more? We can live as we like.” We are not sure whether the false teachers actually reasoned things out this way, or whether this was simply the effect of what they were doing. But the result is much the same.

(4) They “deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” The NIV takes a definite stand on a debated interpretive issue, applying the title “only Sovereign” to Jesus Christ. The Greek is not so clear, and the rendering “the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (KJV) is also possible.13 But the NIV is followed by almost all the modern versions, and this interpretation does seem to be justified.14 We have here another instance in which Jude applies language typically used only of God to Jesus Christ.

Exactly how were the false teachers “denying” Christ? They may have been denying him in theory, by contesting his nature or status or by teaching things incompatible with the “faith once for all delivered.”15 But the unique combination “sovereign and Lord” draws attention to Jesus’ right to demand obedience from his followers. Probably, then, Jude is thinking of a practical denial of Christ, of people behaving in a manner contrary to what Jesus the Lord demands of his people.16

Bridging Contexts

WE WILL UNDERSTAND Jude 3–4 better by paying closer attention to two specific matters: the place of the verses within the argument of the letter and the significance and limitations of tradition in the early church.

Hellenistic rhetoric and the letter of Jude. New Testament authors grew up in a “multicultural” environment. Most were Jews, deeply influenced by the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Yet they were also citizens of a larger Greco-Roman world, a world formed by the traditions of Greek philosophy and literature and by Roman legal concepts. Scholars debate endlessly about which of these influences was most decisive for the various New Testament writers. Controversy about Paul’s place in this multicultural spectrum is especially sharp. When we consider Jude, what immediately strikes us, of course, is his thorough Jewishness. We know he was raised in a Jewish home in Israel. In his letter, he extensively cites and alludes to the Old Testament and Jewish traditions. We might, then, be tempted to conclude that the Jewish influence is the only one that we need to consider when interpreting Jude.

But this would be shortsighted. Jewish as he was, Jude could nevertheless not escape some influence from the Greco-Roman world of which he was a part. Scholars have shown that any sharp distinction between “Palestinian Judaism” and “Hellenistic Judaism” is impossible. All Judaism in the first century was to some extent “Hellenized”—that is, influenced by Greco-Roman ideas—because all Jews lived in a Hellenistic environment.17 Thus we must at least be open to the possibility that Jude was influenced by Greco-Roman ideas as he wrote his letter.

One of the most important emphases in this Greco-Roman world was “rhetoric.” By “rhetoric,” we do not mean literary embroidery (as when we say, for example, that “the rhetorical flourishes of the speaker were most moving”). “Rhetoric” in the ancient world was the art of persuasion. Aristotle had defined some of its classic forms of rhetoric in his The Art of Rhetoric, and the Romans, a thoroughly legal people, developed the art extensively.

Many biblical scholars have argued that various New Testament writings, or portions of those writings, follow the standards of ancient rhetoric. These arguments are by no means always persuasive; in many cases, one gets the impression that a form is being forced onto material that does not fit it very well. But F. Duane Watson has made a convincing case that the letter of Jude follows typical ancient rhetorical procedures.18 A rhetorical perspective places attention on persuasion: Jude is trying to persuade his readers to adhere to his vision of the Christian faith and to reject the view propagated by the false teachers. We should not be surprised if he uses a conventional rhetorical model to accomplish this purpose.

Watson uses typical ancient rhetorical features to outline Jude as follows:

Verse 3: the exordium, which introduces the “case” that the speaker is going to try to make

Verse 4: the narratio, which sets forth the concerns that have led to the issue being addressed

Verses 5–16: the probatio, which attempts to persuade the audience to accept the speaker’s point of view by arguments and proofs

Verses 17–23: the peroratio, which repeats the basic case and appeals to the emotions

We can readily see that the body of Jude corresponds to these divisions quite well. This need not mean that Jude self-consciously adopted a particular rhetorical model. It may be that he naturally fell into this general style of argument as it was known to him from his surrounding culture.

At least two elements in verses 3–4 stand out a bit more in light of their rhetorical function. (1) As we have noted, some of the key points in these two verses (and vv. 1–2, what Watson calls the “quasi-exordium”) emerge again in the peroratio (vv. 17–23):

love: “loved” and “love” (vv. 1–2), “beloved” (v. 3), and “keep yourselves in God’s love” (v. 21)

mercy: “mercy” (v. 2), and “be merciful to those who doubt” (v. 22)

keep: “kept by Jesus Christ” (v. 2), and “keep yourselves in God’s love” (v. 21)

the need to adhere to apostolic tradition: “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (v. 3), and “remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold” (v. 17)

identification and negative characterization of the false teachers: verse 4 and verses 18–19.

Jude’s procedure is typical of rhetorical forms, which usually repeated essential ideas from the exordium in the peroratio. Rhetorical analysis draws attention to the significance of these points as key ideas in Jude’s persuasive strategy.

(2) Rhetorical analysis also helps us understand why Jude uses some of the language he does in verse 4. As both ancient and modern “persuaders” understand, getting people to accept one’s point of view can depend as much on emotion as on logic. (Consider the typical political advertising one sees on TV!) Thus good rhetoricians use a lot of emotive language. Note how Jude does this in verse 4: “certain men” (contemptuous language); “secretly slipped in” (they are underhanded and duplicitous); “godless” (they don’t really worship God); “immorality”; “deny Jesus Christ.” As Watson notes, the language communicates “urgency and disgust.”19 Jude leaves us in no doubt about what he thinks of these people from the very start, and the strength of his language gets our attention at the outset. What he writes about is no trivial matter.

Tradition in the early church. Contemporary application of these verses also demands that we have some idea of the New Testament teaching on “tradition.” Jude touches on this matter in his description of the faith as “once for all entrusted to the saints.” Many scholars think that a person living in the apostolic age could not have used such an expression. They insist it smacks of a later period, in the second century perhaps, when the church had come to recognize a traditional body of dogma that had been around for some time. To these interpreters tradition represents a departure from the innovative and vigorous life of the young Christian community. Nor does tradition usually have a positive connotation for us. We think of the song from Fiddler on the Roof, in which the central Jewish character insists on the old ways by harping on “Tradition.” And many of us have worshiped in churches that were tragically closed to innovation because of “tradition” (“but we’ve always done it this way”).

Is this what Jude’s expression means? What does the New Testament say about “tradition”? (1) We must recognize that “tradition” plays an important role within the New Testament itself. The most famous example is 1 Corinthians 15:1–8:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The highlighted word, “passed on,” translates the same Greek word that the NIV translates “entrusted” in Jude 3 (paradidomi). In other words, Paul himself insists that the truth about Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection—central to the gospel message—had been “passed down” to him. Almost from the beginning, it seems, the early Christians formulated a body of essential truths about God’s work in Christ that was passed on wherever the gospel was preached.

(2) Paul speaks often about this same “tradition” in the Pastoral Letters. There he insists that Timothy and Titus focus on “sound” or “healthy” teaching (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1), and he urges Timothy to “guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:14). Many scholars think that we have here another example of a late first-or early second-century attitude. But it is perfectly natural to see in this emphasis a concern on the part of Paul, as he reached the end of his life, to pass on intact the gospel as God had revealed it to the apostles. For God gave the apostles a critical role to play in the development of Christian truth. Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would “teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26) probably applies specifically to the apostles, who became the transmitters and guardians of the truth about Jesus.

The point, then, is that already in the New Testament period itself, we can recognize clearly the importance of an established set of beliefs based on the teaching of the apostles. It is this “tradition” that Jude is at such pains to guard against the encroachments of the false teachers.

Contemporary Significance

RECOGNIZING THE RHETORICAL character of Jude reminds us about just what kind of letter the author has written: a passionate argument for a particular point of view. We can easily slip into far too analytical a mode when we read a letter like this one. Careful analysis, of course, is necessary—at least I hope it is, or this commentary has no purpose. But analysis can too easily become an end in itself or have the effect of dulling the real point and power of a letter.

Jude writes with urgency; we need to sense that urgency and pick some of it up as we read the letter. For false teachers are all about in our day, and the “faith once for all entrusted to the saints” is battered and attacked on every side. Do we care? Jude sure did!

Related to his passion is his emotion. He writes no dispassionate analysis of the false teachers; he lambastes and condemns them. We should read Jude sympathetically, allowing his own emotions to stir us to action. For Jude wants his emotional language to persuade us to his point of view. Rhetoric was designed for oral situations: the lawyer pleading a case in court, the politician trying to win over uncommitted voters. Perhaps if we were to read Jude aloud, putting all the emotion he packs into his words into our speech, we could appreciate his message better.

What is Jude so passionate about? In a phrase, “the faith once for all entrusted to the saints.” As Charles Bigg puts it, “Jude’s language about the Faith is highly dogmatic, highly orthodox, highly zealous…. Men who used such phrases believed passionately in a creed.”20

Creeds are out of fashion in our day, and for two reasons. (1) Many of us attend churches that are not rooted in any creed. The contemporary evangelical movement has fostered many churches that are either nondenominational or only loosely tied to denominations. And it is, of course, in some of the historic denominations that creeds are most important. Yet even in churches that have preserved a strong sense of denominational connection (e.g., many Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches, not to mention Roman Catholicism) there is a tendency today to downplay the role of creeds.

(2) This leads to a second reason for the lack of attention to creeds. The very word has a bit of a “stuffy” ring to it. It conjures up before us the images of musty and dusty church buildings and dry academic disputes. As a result, many modern evangelicals have no roots. Their sense of Christianity goes back no further than their own church (which may have been in existence for only a few years) or no further back than their current pastor.

Now I am certainly not advocating a return to the sad ecclesiastical squabbles—and even wars—that have marred the cause of Christ over the years. Creeds can be narrow and divisive, entrenching certain doctrines at the expense of others and convincing us that our specific view of the faith is the only right one. But the point Jude is making is obvious: There is a set of beliefs, based in the teaching and work of Christ, developed and passed on by the apostles, that is nonnegotiable. To be Christian is to agree with these beliefs; to reject them is to cease to be Christian.

Defining precisely what these beliefs are, of course, is the trick. Many definitions, or creeds, are far too lengthy, including matters that are at best questionable or tangential in the New Testament. But other creeds are far too simple and include far too little. I think in this regard of some of the “confessions” that have emerged in the course of the ecumenical movement. Some of them suggest that you can be a Christian as long as you think that Jesus Christ is somehow significant to your spiritual journey. Any creed we adopt needs to include those matters that the apostolic tradition—the New Testament—makes essential; and it should not include any that are not made essential.

Writing such a creed, of course, is a daunting task; and we must realize that we will never all agree on everything. But I think we can receive help in the task by developing in the evangelical movement a much greater respect for history. I taught a Sunday school class in my church recently in which I took as my subject “orthodoxy.” I gave a sketchy overview of “church history,” focusing on the way the different periods in history contributed to different doctrines. My purpose was to give these believers, who had never even heard of most of the people and ideas I was talking about, a sense of the oneness of “Christendom”: people in every century who have believed basically the same things.

Such a historical consciousness is a tremendous encouragement, reminding us that we stand as part of a great company of people—from all over the world and from every period of time—who have confessed Christ and stood up for the truth. It is also a vital corrective to the over-emphases and blind spots that our culture may bring to our theological vision. For although tradition can stifle growth, lack of tradition often means that a church has no anchor to hold it secure in the faith in the midst of the changing winds of culture and theology.

Finally, I would urge us to recapture the kind of passion for orthodoxy that Jude had. As David Wells and others have pointed out, we live in a time when believers do not get excited about truth.21 We are narrowly practical in our focus, myopically concentrating on the “bottom line” of behavior to the exclusion of everything else. But one of the points Jude is trying to get across is that truth and practice are linked together. Confessing the right things is vital if we are to live the right way. The truth of God in Christ sets people free. Surely, if we really appreciate the power of the gospel and the blessings it brings to us, we will be more passionate in maintaining and defending it.