Jude (Introduction)
In the opening verse of Jude, the
author identified himself as, "Jude, the servant of Jesus
Christ, and brother of James". We know this Jude is not one
of the apostles from verse 17 where he wrote, "But you,
beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the
apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ". This Jude affirmed
himself to be the brother of James. This brother of Jude cannot
be the apostle we know as James because his only brother was the
apostle John, both of whom were identified in scripture as the
sons of Zebedee and also as the "sons of thunder" (Mark
3:17). There is never a reference either in scripture or
non-biblical historical writings of any son of Zebedee named
Jude or Judas.
There was another James mentioned in
scripture who was not an apostle who did have a brother named
Judas. In
Matthew 13:55 we see a listing of the brothers of Jesus
Christ, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother
called Mary? And His
brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?" The name "Judas"
is identical to the name "Jude" as used in the title of this
epistle.
James, the Lord's brother was not an
apostle, in fact he was not even a believer in Jesus as the
Messiah at first as indicated in
John 7:5 "For even His brothers did not believe in Him."
James, the brother of Jude later grew to be a prominent figure
within the 1st century church as evidenced in
Galatians 2:9-12 and
Acts 15:13. James, the brother of John had been slain by
Herod prior to these events as recorded in
Acts 12:2 so we know the James spoken of with such
prominence in Acts 15 and Galatians was James the brother
of Jesus. Having grown in the faith to such distinction, the
readers of Jude's letter, who knew the Apostle James had been
executed would associate this letter with James the brother of
Jesus upon hearing the connection. Jude effectively identified
himself to his readers when he wrote that he was the brother of
James.
So being a brother to James who was
the brother of Jesus, we know that the Jude who wrote the
epistle which bears his name was in fact one of the brothers of
Jesus, the sons of Mary and Joseph. There is a lot of
speculation among the historians and commentators as to why Jude
chose not to identify himself as the brother of Jesus.
It is important to keep in mind that
the brothers of Jesus were not at first believers in Him as the
Christ. Upon one occasion when Jesus was teaching to the
multitudes, his family had come seeking to speak with him. This
account is found in
Matthew 12:46-50,
Mark 3:31-35 and
Luke 8:19-21. Upon hearing that His family sought to speak
with Him, Jesus made replied, "Who is My mother and who are
My brothers?" And He [Jesus], stretched out His hand
toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My
brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My
brother and sister and mother" (Matthew
12:48-50). Jude and James were both aware that servants of
Jesus Christ held a higher place of distinction with Him than
his own biological family. Thus by identifying himself as a
servant of Christ, Jude appealed more to that noble distinction
than he did to his own kinship with Jesus. In his mind, it was
preferable to be recognized as a servant of Jesus than it was as
His fleshly brother. By doing this, he effectively showed
humility and piety in that scripture plainly teaches that no
Christian is to ever elevate himself in stature to be more than
his brethren. To have claimed kinship with Jesus would have
served no purpose other than to set himself up as somebody of
importance when there is no greater station in life than that of
a bond-servant of Jesus Christ.
Another reason not to identify
oneself as the brother of Jesus was the danger to oneself and to
their readership in the perilous times which surrounded the 1st
century church. It was dangerous in the 1st century to be a
Christian. And to identify oneself as a brother of Jesus Christ
would not only put the author in great danger, but also those
who might be found with a copy of a letter written by him. There
is an account in the writings of Eusebius that detail two
grandsons of Jude who were taken before emperor Domitian on
suspicion of an insurrection by the Jews. Being of the lineage
of king David, it was feared that Jude's grandsons could be the
leaders of just such a rebellion against the empire. It was not
conducive to a long life in the paganistic 1st century Roman
Empire to be identified as a blood relative to Jesus Christ.
James the apostle being formerly
slain by Herod, left James, the brother of Jesus who had grown
to be such a prominent figure in the church that no further
introduction other than "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and
brother of James" was necessary. James, the brother of Jesus
was reputed among the Christians of the first century as a "pillar"
in the church (Galatians
2:9). Jude's readership knew exactly who he was without any
further identification.
This leaves us with two books of our
New Testament written by half brothers of our Lord. This is even
more significant given the fact that none of our Lord's brothers
believed in Him at first. These men knew intimate details of the
life of Jesus that nobody else could know. If Jesus were some
kind of imposter, there is no way he could have fooled someone
he grew up with. Jesus was said to be completely without sin (2
Corinthians 5:21,
Hebrews 4:15;
7:26;
9:28,
1 John 3:5). If at any time during the childhoods of the
children of Joseph and Mary that Jesus would have in any way
sinned, there is no way His siblings would have known this. One
cannot spend that much time in the company of someone else and
not have their character scrutinized to the degree that it must
have been and come out of it sinless in reputation unless they
were indeed sinless. The fact that any of Jesus' brothers
converted to Christianity is compelling evidence in favor of the
authenticity of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and we have in our
possession two epistles written by them.
While we are on the subject of the
brothers of Jesus Christ, we should give attention to the
doctrine of the 'Perpetual virginity of Mary'. This doctrine is
part of the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern and Oriental
Orthodoxy, and Anglo-Catholics as expressed in their liturgies,
in which they repeatedly refer to Mary as 'ever
virgin'.According to this teaching, Jesus was the only
biological son of Mary.
This doctrine of the perpetual
virginity of Mary is one element in the well-established
theology known as Mariology. The virginity of Mary at the time
of her conception of Jesus is a key topic in Roman Catholic
Marian art, usually represented as the annunciation to Mary by
the Archangel Gabriel that she would virginally conceive a child
to be born the Son of God. Frescos depicting this scene have
appeared in Roman Catholic Marian churches for centuries.Mary's
virginity even after her conception of Jesus is regularly
represented in the art of both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental
Orthodox as well as in early Western religious art.
Four New Testament passages
contradict the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Matthew 1:24-25 says of Joseph and Mary "... When Joseph
woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him:
he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to
a son..."
Matthew 13:55–56 says of Jesus "... aren't his brothers
James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?",
demonstrating by inspiration that Jesus had siblings.
Mark 3:31-35 records an event that occurred while Jesus was
preaching: "... And his mother and his brothers came, and
standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd
was sitting around him, and
they said to him, 'Your mother and your brothers are outside,
seeking you.'" While affirming the right of disciples to be
supported by the church if necessary, Paul affirmed that Jesus
had brothers in
1 Corinthians 9:5-6, when he wrote, "Do we have no right
to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles,
the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
Based on the teachings of the
inspired record and historical evidence, we reject the doctrine
of the perpetual virginity of Mary and we recognize Jude, the
brother of James as being one of four brothers of our Lord and
savior, all children of Mary and her husband, Joseph.
Being a son of Joseph, we can draw
some conclusions about the kind of person Jude was. Joseph was a
carpenter and we learn from
Mark 6:3 that Jesus was referred to by those who knew Him as
a carpenter as well. From this we can assume that all of the
sons of Joseph would have been trained in this craft as part of
their upbringing. No doubt they were all required to work with
their father in his craft as they grew up. Joseph was described
in scripture as a "just" man when his espoused wife was
found to be with child and he chose not to make a public
spectacle of her. Being called a "just" man meant that he
was a pious man who lived in accordance with the law of Moses.
Having been instructed by an angel that Mary had not been
unfaithful to him, he made the decision to allow Mary to remain
a virgin until after Jesus
was born. Joseph was obviously a man of God and coupled with the
fact that two of his natural sons grew up to be inspired writers
of scripture, we can reasonably infer that the whole house of
Joseph lived and worshipped as faithful children of God. Jude
would have been as well versed in the writings of the old
testament as anyone in the family. Jesus certainly demonstrated
His familiarity with the old testament writings on the occasion
when he talked with the doctors of the law in the temple. It is
obvious that this family, though poor carpenters of the working
class, were required by the head of the household to be familiar
with scripture and the law of Moses. Jude had good parents and
grew up to be a well known enough member of the Lord's church
that an epistle written by his hand is included in the inspired
record.
Being of the working class, Jude
probably never received any formal training such as a doctor of
the law would have. Jude was simple of speech and phrased his
thoughts in direct and frank terms, easy to understand and to
the point. He demonstrates his love for his Christian brethren
in his epistle when he refers to them as "beloved" three
times in his epistle (3; 17; 20). And on the opposite side, he
clearly communicates his disdain for ungodly men and pronounces
the condemnation of God upon them in the harshest of terms
possible for a man of God. There is no room for speculation as
to the feelings of Jude towards those who would lead his
"beloved" brethren away from Christ and down the road to
destruction.
There is no shortage of disagreement
over the date of Jude. The best evidence we have puts the date
of authorship in the latter half of the first century. Looking
at
Jude 17-19, we see that the writer appeals to the words
spoken by the apostles in a way that looks back on them as to a
former age. In
Jude 3 we see, concerning the faith, as being "once
delivered" demonstrating that at the time of this writing, "the
faith" had been completely delivered and recorded. Jude
points to prophecies regarding heretics by the apostles and
affirms that these predictions have indeed been fulfilled. The
entire book takes on a general feeling of looking back to a
former time, therefore it is entirely possible that this book
could be one of the latest written works we have. It is entirely
possible, given the evidence at hand that this book could have
been written after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
While no conclusive evidence exists
as to the exact date, it is of little importance in the grand
scheme of things. Whenever the book was written, it has an
application to any who would pervert the doctrine of Christ.
Given the current state of religion today with all the division
and denominationalism, Jude may very well be one of the most
relevant books we have today. One cannot conduct
a through and honest study of this epistle without taking a
critical look at the myriad array of denominations among those
professing Christ as savior and come away from such a study
without any misgivings towards division in the body of Christ.
Let those who would pervert the gospel of Christ and teach the
doctrines and commandments of men instead, beware. Jude's
condemnation for such behavior leaves no room for speculation as
to the fate facing those who would depart from the truth and
teach doctrine in opposition to that which was once for all time
delivered.
The intended audience of this
epistle according to
Jude 1 is to all Christians. Jude did not target a specific
group in his introduction such as Jews or any one congregation
or individual. It was a common practice for the epistles to be
copied and distributed among all the churches. Such would have
been the case here and obviously was in view of the fact that it
was preserved and included in the inspired record of scripture
we have today. The purpose for this epistle is very simple. It
is stated early in the letter with urgency that there were those
who having apostatized from the faith, were leading others down
the road to destruction with them. Jude is a letter of warning,
with application to all Christians of all ages, against apostasy
and following after its destructive effects.
Any study of Jude should include a
parallel study of 2 Peter 2. Peter prophecies of a group of
apostates who will come in secretly and lure many away from the
truth and who will suffer eternal condemnation. Jude identifies
a group of apostates who did that very thing and used many of
the same examples that Peter did in illustrating these people
and the characteristics which would help in identifying them.
One cannot help but be impressed by the similarity and draw a
conclusion that Jude was identifying and condemning those who
Peter forewarned his readership of.
There are a number of false
doctrines in existence today. When one looks out over the array
of denominations, many having their own so called interpretation
of the truth, it is hard to accept the notion that they can all
be correct. Anybody with any kind of serious approach whatsoever
to their soul's eternal wellbeing must at some point in their
life behold all the religious diversity and reflect on the state
of their own soul. There are various slants on Biblical truth,
but one the most prevalent which helps gives rise to all the
rest is the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. When one
believes one is saved by faith alone, then the necessity of
attention to correctness in other matters is of secondary
importance. Advocates of this doctrine, believing that salvation
is obtained by faith alone, feel the freedom to exercise their
own wants and wishes into their religious service. Such supposed
freedom has opened the door to all kinds of religious diversity.
Those claiming Christ feel they can window shop for a "church"
that suits their personal taste with no ill consequences because
they feel their salvation is secure in their faith alone.
The book of James, in particular
chapter 2, presents some serious hurdles for this doctrine. One
cannot accept James chapter 2 at face value and hold in any way
to the doctrine of Salvation by faith alone. This doctrine is
here mentioned because Jude is all about those who would
apostatize from God's truth and James was one book written to
combat the beliefs of a group of apostate Christians who,
wrongly believing that one is saved by the merits of God's grace
alone, had crept into the church bringing this unholy doctrine
with them. They used this perversion to justify all kinds of
illicit sexual behavior and to even promote it.
Another doctrine which has arisen
through the centuries is the doctrine of 'Once Saved, Always
Saved'. This doctrine teaches that once one is saved, there is
nothing they can do which will cause them to so sin so as to
lose their salvation. Proponents of this doctrine have some
serious hurdles to overcome with the book of Jude which is all
about apostatizing Christians. Jude contains words of
condemnation for those who do pervert the truth of God's word
and likewise for those who would follow their unholy teachings.
If the possibility of apostasy did not exist, then Jude, as well
as 2 Peter chapter 2, would be an altogether unnecessary
inclusion in God's word. Like James chapter 2, there is no way
one could take the book of Jude at face value and continue to
believe in the specific doctrine it is intended to condemn.
|
|
The church of Christ |
|
|
|
|
At Granby, MO |
|
|
