THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE
[Sidenote: The Author.]
"Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." We can be
sure that the James here mentioned is the James who acted as the first
bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. The author's designation of himself
would not be intelligible unless he meant that he was related to a very
prominent man of that name. The writer cannot be the Apostle Jude. He
does not claim to be an apostle, and he seems indirectly to repudiate
the authority of an apostle by describing himself only in relation to
his brother and by referring to "the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ"
in a manner which seems to distinguish them for himself. If the
Apostle Jude was the _son_ of James (as many scholars think), this Jude
was clearly another man. If the Apostle was the _brother_ of James (as
the English Authorised Version holds), then his identification with
this Jude is still doubtful.
Jude was a son of St. Joseph. At first he did not believe in our Lord
(John vii. 5), but was convinced by the Resurrection (Acts i. 14). He
was married (1 Cor. ix. 5). Hegesippus, a writer of the 2nd century,
tells us that two of his grandsons were taken before the Emperor
Domitian as being of the royal house of David, and therefore dangerous
to the empire.[1] He found them to be poor rough-handed men, and
dismissed them with good-humoured contempt when they described the
kingdom of Christ as heavenly. Philip of Side, about 425, says {266}
that Hegesippus gave the names of these two men as Zocer and James.
The Epistle was known to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and is
in the _Muratorian Fragment_.
The chief objections to the authenticity of this Epistle fall under
three heads. It is said that (a) a late date is indicated by the
allusion to the teaching of the apostles in ver. 17. But the allusion
seems to correspond exactly with a late date in the apostolic age, for
vers. 17 and 18 assume that the readers remember what the apostles had
said. It is said that (b) the phrase in ver. 3, "the faith which was
once for all delivered unto the saints," indicates that a definite body
of doctrine was recognized by the Christians of the period, and that
the Christians of the apostolic age did not use the word "faith" in
this sense. But it is not difficult to suppose that the word would be
soon extended from the act of believing to the facts believed. And in
such early passages as Gal. i. 23 and Rom. x. 8 we find the word
closely approximating to the latter sense. It is said that (c) the
heresy which is described is a heresy of the 2nd century, and implies a
definite Gnostic system. But the fact that the Epistle does not
describe such a definite system is convincingly shown by the inability
of certain critics to determine who the heretics are. The Balaamites
of Asia Minor, the Carpocratians of Egypt, and some obscure sects of
Syria, are all suggested. There is no evidence to show that the errors
here described could not have grown up in apostolic times, and the
Epistles of St. Paul contain several passages which point to similar
perversions of Christianity. The word "sensual" in ver. 19 was an
insulting term applied to ordinary Christians by the Gnostics of the
2nd century, but St. Jude's use of it betrays no consciousness of this
later application.
The style of the letter makes it practically certain that it was
written by some one who had been a Jew. The Greek is forcible. It
shows a considerable knowledge of Greek words, {267} including various
poetical and archaic expressions. But the manner is stiff, and the
sentences are linked together with difficulty. Several phrases come
from the Septuagint, some of them being taken from the Book of Wisdom.
It is probable that the author was acquainted with the Hebrew Old
Testament, as ver. 12 (from Ezek. xxxiv. 2) and ver. 22 f. (from Zech.
iii. 2 f.) suggest this.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
The Epistle is simply addressed "to them that are called, beloved in
God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ." It seems that these
Christians must have been natives of Palestine or Syria. They had been
personally instructed by the apostles (ver. 17), which makes this
region probable. No place seems more likely than Antioch and its
neighbourhood. The libertinism which was endangering the Church would
not be likely to arise except in a district where the Christians were
in close contact with heathenism. Extreme critics now usually maintain
that it was written either in Asia or in Egypt. If written in Asia, it
can hardly have been written by the Lord's brother, as we know that his
descendants lived in Palestine. If written in Egypt, it can hardly
belong to the age of the apostles. These two sceptical theories as to
the place where the Epistle was written contradict one another
effectively.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
The style and contents of the letter show that it was probably written
in Palestine and at Jerusalem. The date is probably soon after the
martyrdom of St. James in A.D. 62. St. Jude was dead before his
grandsons had their interview with Domitian. The Epistle must
therefore be before A.D. 81.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The Epistle is remarkable as containing references to two Jewish books
of an apocalyptic character which are not mentioned in the Old
Testament. This caused some writers in early days to hesitate to
ascribe the Epistle to a brother of St. James, and in recent times the
same argument has been revived in a new {268} form. But these
quotations seem quite compatible with a belief in the genuineness of
the Epistle. The books quoted were in existence in the apostolic age,
and would be likely to be valued by a devout Jew. In ver. 9 there is
reference to Michael, which Origen says was derived from the
_Assumption of Moses_, a Jewish work written at the beginning of the
Christian era. In 2 Pet. ii. 11 the allusion to Michael is so
modified, that the origin of the reference is no longer obvious. In
vers. 4, 6, and 14, there are quotations from the _Book of Enoch_, a
Jewish book composed of sections written at various dates, the latest
being written in the century before Christ.
The purpose of the Epistle is to warn the Church against certain
depravers of God's grace who denied "our only Master and Lord, Jesus
Christ" (ver. 4). The author sees fit to remind his readers of ancient
examples of unfaithfulness and impurity, and shows that they must be
compassionate towards the wavering, and try to save the worst by a
desperate effort. It is plain that the false teachers were guilty of
gross and unnatural vice, that they were greedy, and destitute of godly
fear. They also, like the evil Christians at Corinth, brought
discredit upon the Agapé (ver. 12), a social meal which the Christians
were first wont to partake of before the Eucharist, and at a later date
after the Eucharist. The licence which is rebuked by St. Jude probably
arose from a perversion of the doctrine of justification by faith which
had been taught by our Lord. Christians who had been taught that they
could be saved without observing the Jewish ceremonial law, imagined
that they could be saved without any self-discipline or self-restraint.
Many parallels to such errors have been found in modern times, the
worst example being that afforded by the Anabaptists, who arose in
Germany at the time of the Reformation. It is worth noticing that, in
spite of the untheological character of this Epistle, the writer shows
his belief in the Holy Trinity by the manner in which he refers to the
Father {269} and Jesus Christ (ver. 1) and the Holy Ghost (ver. 20).
The Epistle gives no encouragement to the theory that the first Jewish
Christians were Unitarians.
ANALYSIS
Salutation and charge to maintain "the faith" (1-4). Warnings from the
punishment of the Israelites, of the angels, of Sodom and Gomorrha
(5-7).
Railing at dignities rebuked (8-10).
Denunciation of those who imitate Cain (murder), Balaam (encouragement
of impurity), Korah (schism), and spoil the _Agapé_ (11-13).
These sectaries foretold by Enoch (14-16).
And by the apostles (17-19).
Duty of edifying believers, and saving sinners (20-23).
Doxology (24, 25).
[1] Eusebius, _H. E._ iii. 20.
{270}