Skip to main content

How Jude Dealt with Division, in Canonical Context

For our last post on Jude (next up, Philemon) we will look at the issue of division within the church. It's very clear in Jude 19 that the community is being divided by the false teachers. Unfortunately, while Jude gives us a lot of information on the nature of the false teachers, we don't know much about the nature of the divisions that were occurring. At first glance, its also somewhat frustrating that he doesn't give any direction on what to do with the false teachers.

There could be a couple of reasons for that. Jude could be in a situation like that of Paul's in 2 Corinthians where his authority was so strongly challenged that he could not come on too strong, because the false teachers were too powerful. I think, though, that Jude wants to be careful to avoid pitting genuine believers against each other.

But Jude does contain language that seems to denigrate a specific group. He calls them 'certain people' and especially 'these people.' While he calls the faithful group, 'friends' and 'those who are loved in God.' Jude certainly does not think highly of the false teachers and the way that they live, and he does draw clear lines between those in God's favor and those outside of it. However, he never pits the two groups against one another. He defines each group on the basis of their relationship with God. The other issue is that it seems as if the false teachers had led some astray. Jude holds out hope for their rescue (Jude 22-23). If Jude gives a judgment of 'kick out the false teachers from among you', then he runs the risk of some ,who may have been on the fence and leaning towards following the false teachers, following them out the door, probably to their own destruction.

Jude's heart of love and compassion for the wavering shines through strongly in this letter. I think it helps provide us with balance. I think we're too quick sometimes to rush in and act like Paul in Galatians 1. This does not mean that we should be tolerant towards sin or false teaching, Jude condemned the false teachers sin in the strongest terms possible. There also is some danger in not acting swiftly when serious problems arise and sometimes it is right to immediately squash false teachers. What Jude provides us, is an instance where that was not done. Paul, in Galatians 1, and Jude, here, had the same goal. They were most concerned with the salvation of the members of the church and with the church's unity. When challenges to authority arise, the course of action adopted needs to be the one that will result in the combination of maximal unity and maximal preservation of the saints. Sometimes that's acting swiftly and kicking offending parties out of the church, but that's not always the right approach. Being too quick to judge can result in alienating the weaker members of the body, and that isn't a good thing.

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