Skip to main content

God's Love in Jude 1

Jude 1 reads, 'Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:' (TNIV). The big debate in this verse is over the phrase ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις which the TNIV translates 'who are loved in God the Father' (the NASB, ESV, RSV, and NRSV are similar). The NIV translates the phrase 'who are loved by God the Father' (as does the HCSB). The question is on how to best translate 'ἐν in this case, is it 'in' or 'by?' Commentators are split, with Bauckham and Davids following the TNIV and translating it 'in.' Reese and Green go with 'by.'

If you're interested in the argument based on Greek, it follows in the rest of this paragraph. Green claims that the translation 'by' because in this case ἐν plus a dative expresses personal agent. Bauckham and Davids suggest that if Jude wanted to say 'loved by God', there was a much more natural way to do so in this instance. He could have used ὑπὸ instead of ἐν.

There are a couple of other texts that point in the direction of using 'in.' In verse 21 Jude exhorts his readers to , 'keep yourselves in God's love.' 1 John expresses similar ideas of being 'in God' (c.f., 1 Jn 2:24; 3:24; 4:13, 15, 16) as does John 15. Thus there is precedent for the concept of being loved in God.

The difference between the two is significant. If the majority of translations are right (which I think they probably are), then Jude is stressing that we experience God's love through the intimate relationship we have with him as our father. Everything about the verse is stressing this relational aspect, and the preposition serves to intensify it. Before Jude warns the beloved of the judgment awaiting the infiltrators and those who follow them he wants to give them the strongest assurance he can of God's love for them and that the relationship they have with God is still in tact.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5