Bible Commentaries
Jude

JUDE

XXV

INTRODUCTION TO JUDE

This letter is by far the strangest of the New Testament books, whether we consider the external evidence of it, its canonicity, or the subject matter. It is surprising, not only that the external evidence in its favor is stronger than for the earlier letter of his more illustrious brother James and for the second letter of Peter, which it strikingly resembles, but also that this evidence, unlike that in the case of the James letter, should be so much stronger in the West than in the East.

The strangeness of its subject matter consists of five particulars, all of which must be carefully considered in the exposition:

1. Its likeness to 2 Peter: This likeness is startling enough, without unduly multiplying and magnifying the points of resemblance, as does Canon Farrar in his usual extreme way. There is enough of the indisputable resemblance to raise two questions, both of which must be answered, later, to wit: (1) Which borrowed from the other? (2) Is the borrowing outright plagiarism?

2. Its alleged endorsement of a variant Septuagint rendering of Genesis 6:1-4, making the great sin leading to the deluge to consist of unnatural relations between angels and women, resulting in a monstrous progeny.

3. Its alleged quotation from and endorsement of an apochryphal book, The Assumption of Moses, in the reference to the contention of Michael and Satan for the body of Moses.

4. Its alleged quotation from and endorsement of the apocryphal book of Enoch.

5. In being the only New Testament book containing the word Agapae, i.e., love feasts.

The author is frank to say that if the letter clearly endorses the alleged cohabitation of angels and women, and the doctrine of the Assumption of Moses (that the dead body of Moses was raised and glorified without seeing corruption), and endorses the apocryphal book of Enoch, or any one of the three, then it is in such palpable conflict with unmistakable, abundant, and indisputable Bible teachings, that its own claim to inspiration is, in his judgment, nullified. There is a canon, or rule, of faith which tests every doctrine of a book. Bible truths are homogeneous and congruous. A sound doctrine may be run through every book of the Bible without collision with any other doctrine of the system, as all the bones of a human skeleton may be articulated without distortion or displacement of others. But the bones of a brute skeleton will not fit into the human frame. If we try to pass any one of the three teachings named above through the Bible books, we are knocking other teachings over right and left, or lodging in a cul-de-sac, or butting against a wall. This characteristic of Bible books and doctrines is the highest proof of inspiration. A trend proves the course of a river more than a bend here or there.

We now consider, in order, the usual questions on introductions: Who the author? On the face of the letter, the answer is clear: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (Judges 1:1), but not an apostle: "But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they said unto you, In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts" (Judges 1:17-18).

The James here named is doubtless the great first pastor of the church at Jerusalem, and author of the New Testament letter of that name. Then, as the New Testament gives account of only one pair of brothers named "James and Jude" (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), the brother of our Lord, we ought to be done with this question.

2. But what one purely gratuitous and artificial difficulty has foisted itself upon the otherwise simple problems of identifying this Jude and caused endless complications and controversies? The baseless theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of our Lord. Apart from this theory, a mere glance at eight groups of pertinent passages in the New Testament, to be cited below, with the observance of the commonest of principles, grammatical construction and interpretation, would not only suffice to settle the question forever, but to excite amazement that any critic should dare to advocate a different conclusion.

3. What two distinct classes advocate the theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Non-Romanists and Romanists.

4. In what way has the first class muddled a simple question? Non-Romanists, on sentimental grounds, have been unwilling to believe that Mary bore children to Joseph after the birth of our Lord. They have felt constrained, therefore, to set aside the prima-facie and common-sense meaning of many scriptures, (1) by a mere conjecture, based on no shred of evidence, that Joseph was a widower with a large family of children when he married Mary. We know the names of four sons besides the sisters, number not given. If, then, we allow for a decent interval between the death of the alleged first wife and marriage with Mary, and for the usual interval between children, this would make James about fifteen years older than our Lord, a condition at war with all the scriptural facts.

Or (2) they have put forward another guess that the brothers and sisters of our Lord were only cousins, children of Clopas and Mary’s sister. Just why these children lived with their aunt, instead of their own parents, they fail to explain. But having guessed this much, they must guess more, and identify Clopas with Alpheus in order to number two of these nephews with the twelve apostles.

5. And how do Romanists muddle the question? They, too, advocate the second guess above, and make the perpetual virginity of Mary a part of an extensive Mariology, which develops into a blasphemous Mariolatry, deifying a woman, and changing the gospel into another gospel. She and not her Son bruised the serpent’s head (see their Latin version of Genesis 3:15). Her own conception is declared immaculate as well as her Son’s (see decree of Pius IX on the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, Dec. 8, 1845). In an encylical letter, February, 1849, preparing the way for this declaration, this Pope writes: "The whole ground of our confidence is placed in the most Holy Virgin . . . God has vested in her the plenitude of all good, so that henceforth, if there be in us any hope, if there be any grace, if there be any salvation, we must receive it solely from her, according to the will of him who would have us possess all through Mary" (quoted in Schaff’s Creed of Christendom) . Her assumption into heaven without death, there to be the queen of heaven and mediatrix between men and Jesus, is also affirmed. She must be adored.

6. What sets of scriptural passages bear on these two theories of the brothers of our Lord? Eight groups of passages bear on this matter. That the series may be considered in the time order, they are cited from one of our textbooks, Broadus’ Harmony of the Gospels, so far as the gospels cover them, and are so numbered:

(1) Harmony, page 7, Sec. 6, Matthew 1:18-25. The section commences thus: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Then follows the account of the purpose of Joseph to put her away privily, until assured by the angel of the Lord: ’Tear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife." The section closes thus: "And Joseph . . . did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took unto him his wife; and knew her not until she had brought forth a Son." All we are asked to do is to put on this passage the most natural construction, and determine for ourselves whether Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife after the birth of Jesus.

(2) Harmony, page 20, Sec. 20, John 2:12: "After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples." Here observe that Joseph had disappeared from the history, not to appear again. The last notice of him was when Jesus was twelve years old. He and Mary had lived together as man and wife for many years at Nazareth, until Be died. Consequently Jesus, the first-born, is the head of the family and following him are his mother and his brothers (Greek, adelphoi). The primary and natural meaning of this word is "brothers," in this case, children of the same mother. Where the context demands it, the word may be applied to kindred of a remoter degree, though the Greek has quite a different word for "cousins," never applied in the New Testament to these "brothers." In like manner the word is often applied to those who are spiritual brothers. Yet the primary, natural meaning of adelphoi, "sons of a common parent," must be retained unless the obvious context demands another sense. We do well, also, to note that this passage distinguishes his brothers from his disciples.

(3) Harmony, pages 59-60, Sec. 50, Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21. Here his mother and his brothers intrude on his work, seeking to interrupt a public service. Indeed, we may safely gather from Mark’s preceding words (Mark 3:20-21), that his family, according to the flesh, are but following up what his friends sought to do, i. e., "lay hold on him, for they said, he is beside himself." Their conclusion that he was "beside himself" was drawn from hearing that his spiritual duties were so pressing that "they could not so much as eat bread." The restraint they sought to put on him was almost tantamount to what we would call "serving a writ of lunacy." It was this intrusion that he sternly rebuked by saying, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said, Behold my mother and my brothers," sharply discriminating between brothers according to nature and according to the Spirit. The whole lesson not only implies that these were his brothers in the common and natural sense, but also that they were not disciples.

(4) Harmony, pages 70-71, Sec. 54, Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-5. This is an account of his second reception at Nazareth, his own city, where he had lived for about thirty years, where all the people knew the entire family. And it is the Nazarenes, familiar with every event of the family history who say, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" Here for the first time we come on the names of his four brothers, including "James and Jude." The people of this village, intimate with the family for thirty years, know nothing of a cousin theory. They know nothing of Mary’s having adopted a houseful of nephews and nieces. Neither does the New Testament. Nothing but the pressing need to save a theory could ever have so distorted this simple straightforward narrative from its obvious meaning.

(5) Harmony, page 102, Sec. 73, John 7:2-9. We have only to read this section, describing an event late in his history, to see how far apart in spirit is our Lord from his four younger half brothers. Indeed, the inspired John expressly says, "For even his brothers did not believe in him." If we consider that this incident occurred after the long Galilean ministry was ended, and that his twelve apostles were ordained at the beginning of this ministry, before the Sermon on the Mount was preached, or the first great group of parables were delivered (see Harmony, page 44f.), we see how straitened that theory must be to make his unbelieving brothers, always so far distinguished from his disciples, identical with the two apostles, James the son of Alpheus, and James and Jude, otherwise called Thaddeus and Lebbeus. There is no evidence whatever that any of his four brothers was a believer, until after his resurrection, and usually their conversion is attributed to his appearances after his resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15:7: "He appeared to James"). We now take up Acts instead of the Harmony.

(6) Acts 1:13-14, telling what followed his ascension forty flays after his resurrection, gives by name all the twelve apostles, closing thus: "These all [referring to the apostles just named] with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." Here again they are expressly distinguished from the twelve apostles, though now believers, and who were ten days later, with the apostles, baptized in the Holy Spirit.

(7) 1 Corinthians 9:5. Years later -Paul referred to them as married men, but again distinguished them from the twelve apostles, also married men. No man) with unprejudiced mind, can read these seven scriptures,, in their natural context, and observing fair principles of grammatical construction and interpretation, and avoid these conclusions: That Joseph and Mary, after the birth of Jesus, lived together as any other man and wife; that there were born to them sons and daughters; that after the death of Joseph, Jesus was head of the house, the mother and younger children following him; that none of these younger brothers were converted until after his resurrection; that from their conversion, however, all these brothers were faithful Christians; that two of them became authors of New Testament letters, and James early became pastor of the Jerusalem church, and was held in high esteem; that in the nature of the case, none of them were of the twelve apostles to the circumcision; that there is no evidence at all that Joseph was a widower with a large family of sons and daughters.

(8) As the final scriptural argument, I now submit the four lists of the twelve apostles to the circumcision, which I ask the reader to examine carefully in both the Greek and the English. These lists appear at Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13. Neither from these lists nor from any other passage in the New Testament can it be proved that there was among the twelve a pair of brothers named "James and Jude." On the contrary, the preponderance of the evidence is decidedly the other way. It is clear from the lists and other scriptures that Simon Peter and Andrew were brothers, sons of Jonah or John, and that James and John, sons of Zebedee, were brothers, but there the proof stops on the pairs of brothers. To save time, it is conceded that the "Thaddeus" of Mark’s and Matthew’s list is the same with the first "Jude" of Luke’s list. The "Lebbeus" given in some of the manuscripts of Matthew and Mark is only a marginal explanation of Thaddeus, both being terms of endearment, which might well be applied to Jude, the real name.

Neither Matthew nor Mark make Thaddeus a brother of James, the son of Alpheus, which is the more remarkable in Matthew’s case, since he so particularly notes that Simon and Andrew are brothers, and James and John, sons of Zebedee, are brothers. In neither of Luke’s lists are James, the son of Alpheus, and Jude paired; Simon, the zealot, in both lists, pairs with James, the son of Alpheus. Luke’s list alone gives the name of Jude, and in neither list is the word "brother" used. In his gospel list, where the construction demands the accusative case, the Greek is Joudan Jacobou, literally "Jude of James," or "James’ Jude." In the Acts list, nominative form, it is Joudas Jacobou, meaning as before "Jude of James," or "James’ Jude." But what is more remarkable in the Acts list, we have an exactly similar form, Jacobos Alphaiou, which no scholar hesitates to render "James the son of Alpheus." Then why hesitate to render Joudas Jacobou, "Jude, the son of James"? This would not mean that Jude was the son of either James in the apostolic list. It is every way improbable that there were a father and son among the apostles, but merely that Jude’s father was named James, as John’s father was named Zebedee, and Peter’s father named Jonah, or John. It is not necessary that we should know that James was Jude’s father any more than that John was Peter’s father. Accordingly, the American Standard Revision in both of Luke’s lists says, "Jude, the son of James," as we find in the textbook. This rendering is not merely defensible, but is the better grammatical rendering where there is nothing in the context or elsewhere in the New Testament that supplied the word "brother."

In Judges 1:1 of the letter to Jude, we have Joudas Adelphos Jacobou, which, of course, means "Jude, the brother of James." But when we come to prove that this Jude, brother of James, The Adelphos settles it, as it settles Andrew’s relation to Peter is identical with the Jude in Luke’s list of the twelve apostles, then we confront the Latin proverb: Hic labor, hoc opus est. Certainly the Jude of this letter not only makes no such claim, but in Judges 1:17-18 teaches the contrary, clearly distinguishing himself from the apostles. Nor does James, his brother, make such claims in his letter. The whole muddle comes from a strained effort to sustain the baseless theory, the perpetual virginity of Mary.

To all these scriptural testimonies, only two passages can be even seemingly opposed, and they have no real force, but I cite them:

First, it is objected that if Mary had sons of her own, Jesus on the cross would not have commended his mother to the care of John, the son of Zebedee (see John 19:26-27). The reply is obvious. (1) Mary and her sons were very poor. The family had always been poor. Even when Jesus, forty days old, was presented in the Temple as a first-born, holy unto God, the family could offer as a sacrifice only a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons, the minimum offering of extreme poverty. He was only a carpenter, the son of a carpenter, doing common, crude work for a pitiful compensation. Later on, his lifework absorbed his time and labor without compensation, except only that the first Ladies’ Aid Society ministered unto him of their substance. Jesus says of himself, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head." But John was well-to-do. Jesus wanted his mother to have a settled home. Her sons had nothing.

Second, at this time her sons were unbelievers, and out of sympathy with Jesus and his work. The Lord wanted her to have a sympathetic Christian home where Christian influence would be exerted over her younger children. The provision he thus made accomplished all the objects he contemplated, and thus justified itself.

As far as history throws its light of these brothers of our Lord and their descendants, they remained extremely poor. Eusebius preserves an illustration, a fragment of Hegesippus. The story goes that Domitian was apprehensive of the descendants of David. The grandsons of this very Jude were brought before him. But when he saw how poor they were, their hands horny with hard labor, and heard their explanation that the kingdom of our Lord was spiritual, he dismissed them in contempt, no longer fearing a rival in any kingdom of our Lord.

The second objection is based on Galatians 1:19, which says, "I tarried with Cephas fifteen days, but other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother." It is claimed that Paul here calls James an apostle, and impliedly one of the twelve.

The reply is: A fair rendering of the Greek is, "Other of the apostles saw I none, but only James the Lord’s brother." Which means, I saw Peter only of the apostles, but I saw James, the Lord’s brother. Apart from this, a number were called apostles in the etymological, but not official, sense of the word. Jesus himself was called an apostle, and so was Barnabas. In the same way, Jesus was called a deacon, and was one etymologically, though not officially.

The conclusion of the author is that the writer of this letter is Jude, a younger half-brother of our Lord, a son of Joseph and Mary, and a full brother of that James who wrote the New Testament letter of that name and was pastor of the church at Jerusalem) and whose martyrdom, according to Josephus, was one of the causes of the downfall of Jerusalem.

Our next question is, To whom addressed? The letter itself says, "To them that are called beloved in God, the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ," but as its argument so closely follows Peter’s letter, which was addressed to Christian Jews of Asia Minor, and as both attack certain phases of the Gnostic philosophy originating and prevailing in Proconsular Asia, we may safely infer that wavering Christian Jews of Asia Minor are addressed. Jude’s own statement is indefinite, but the whole argument is Jewish.

What the likeness between 2 Peter and Jude? Second Peter is very much like Judges 1:4-16 in the following particulars:

1. Both warn against heretics who are denying the Lord that bought them (2 Peter 2:1; Judges 1:4).

2. These heretics, in both cases, turn the grace of God into lasciviousness (Judges 1:4; 2 Peter 2:2).

3. They crept into the churches privily, and worked privily (2 Peter 2:1; Judges 1:4).

4. In both, their motive is covetousness (Jude II; 2 Peter 2:3; 2 Peter 2:15).

5. In both, these heretics despise government, or rail at dignities (2 Peter 2:10; Judges 1:8).

6. In both, they employ swelling words of vanity (2 Peter 2:18; Judges 1:16).

7. In both, they are described as ignorant, following neither reason nor gospel, but are like the brutes in instincts and passions (2 Peter 2:12; Judges 1:10).

8. In both, they are described as marring the Christian feasts, "spots and blemishes revelling in their deceivings while they feast with you" (2 Peter 2:13). "Hidden rocks in your love-feasts, when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves" (Judges 1:12).

9. In both, they are compared to Balaam (2 Peter 2:5; Judges 1:11).

10. In Peter (2 Peter 2:17) they are "springs without water, and mists driven by storms," and in Jude, "clouds without water carried along by winds" (Judges 1:12).

11. Both Peter and Jude cite three historical examples to show the certain judgment on such evildoers, which in two instances are the same in both, to wit: the punishment of sinning angels, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

These are not all the resemblances, but they are quite sufficient to show that whichever was the later copied much from the other. But this leads to the question: Who wrote first? In the absence of historical proof we have only internal evidence to guide our conclusion. As in all other conclusions dependent on internal evidence alone, anything approaching unanimity is impossible. Criticism on the internal evidence is not a science. Men equally disinterested and scholarly reach opposite conclusions. The historical evidence of two competent witnesses, if we had them, would be worth more than the volumes of criticism based on comparison of the two letters.

Canon Farrar is infallibly sure that Jude wrote first. The author, with all of Farrar’s argument before him, and the arguments of even greater men agreeing with him, reaches, but not so dogmatically, the opposite conclusion, viz: that Peter wrote first. In his judgment the heresies denounced are older and riper when Jude writes. There is more expansion of the points common to both in Jude. Peter refers to fallen angels; Jude does the same, and specifies their sin. Peter refers to unfallen angels who rail not at dignities; so does Jude, and adds an example. Peter cites the case of Balaam; so does Jude, and adds the case of Cain and Korah. Peter refers to the evil of the presence of these heretics at the Christian feasts and describes them in vivid images. Jude does the same and names the feasts and adds to the vivid images.

To the author, it seems more probable that Jude would expand the teaching of an apostle, than that an apostle would depend on Jude for his ideas and lines of thought, condensing from an inferior. In Judges 1:17-18, Jude seems to quote from 2 Peter 3:3. This quotation and testimony of Peter’s apostolic office amount to a confession of Jude’s knowledge of 2 Peter and dependence on it, proper enough in his case, but highly improbable if reversed. The dependence confessed amounts to a defense against the charge of outright plagiarism. There would be no like defense for Peter if he wrote later than Jude. He nowhere even indirectly acknowledges dependence on another. If Peter wrote later than Jude, he is convicted of plagiarism.

While Jude derives much from Peter, and seems to confess it, the dependence, if confessed, is not slavish. He not only contributes new matter to every fact or thought he copies, but manifests both individuality and originality in his use of the ratter copied. He writes with a pen of fire and proves himself a master in rhetorical images.

The reader must note particularly the characterstic which most distinguishes Jude from 2 Peter, to wit: his threes. Not only his three historical examples agreeing with Peter in Judges 1:5-7, but also the three offenses of Judges 1:8, the three evil examples of Judges 1:11, the three characteristics of Judges 1:19, the three- fold remedy of Judges 1:20-21, and the threefold discipline Judges 1:22.

OUTLINE
1. The author and his greeting (Judges 1:1-2).

2. The purpose of the letter (Judges 1:3).

3. The occasion of the letter (Judges 1:4).

4. The three historical examples to prove God’s punishment of heresy and rebellion (Judges 1:5-7).

5. The three offenses against the light of this history committed by these heretics, which make them unlike holy angels, and like unreasoning brutes (Judges 1:8-10).

6. Woe denounced on them for following the examples of three great historic sinners (Judges 1:11).

7. The evil influence of their presence at the Christian love feasts (Judges 1:12-13).

8. The prophecy of Enoch against them (Judges 1:14-16).

9. Their coming foretold by the apostles (Judges 1:17-19).

10. A threefold preventive against becoming like them (Judges 1:20-21).

11. A threefold treatment of discipline prescribed (Judges 1:22-23).

12. Benediction (Judges 1:24-25).

QUESTIONS

1. What things make this the strangest of the New Testament books?

2. What does the author of the book say of himself?

3. What baseless theory needlessly complicates the question of identifying the author?

4. What two classes advocate the theory and what the grounds of the advocacy in each case?

5. In what two ways, one or the other, do Non-Romanists in advocating this theory account for the brothers and sisters of our Lord in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3?

6. What your reply to the first?

7. Which of the two advocated by the Romanists, and why?

8. Cite in order, the eight groups of passages, with the argument of each, disproving the theory.

9. Cite and reply to the two passages seemingly supporting the theory.

10. What the points of likeness to 2 Peter?

11. Who the later writer and why?

12. What one characteristic distinguishes Jude most from 2 Peter?

13. What is the outline?