Skip to main content

An Introduction to Jude

Date: There has been a lot of debate over when Jude was written. Some have argued for a date between the late first century and the end of the second century. Some conversely argue for a date as early as the 50s AD. A late date is usually suggested for the following reasons:

It is suggested by some that Jude is combating Gnosticism, which was a second century heresy that denied the humanity of Christ. I think that suggestion is incorrect. There is no clue in the letter that the infiltrators misunderstood Jesus nature as both God and man. One would expect that if they were advancing a teaching that gravely erroneous that Jude would directly address that in his letter. The antinomianism that Jude addresses, while being characteristic of gnostic 'Christianity,' was a problem long before Gnosticism arrived on the scene.

In Jude 3, Jude writes to urge them, 'to contend for the faith that the Lord has once for all entrusted to us' (TNIV). In verse 17 they are told to, 'remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold' (TNIV). Some have suggested that these two verses give the impression that Jude was written in a period after the death of the apostles where standardization of church teaching has occurred. All these verses imply, though, is that there is no apostolic presence any longer in the locale of the recipients. They received the contents of the gospel from the apostolic founders of their church, and they are to hold fast to their teaching.

As we have seen, a late date is not required by the internal evidence of the letter. My view on authorship below commits me to a date in the 50s or 60s.

Authorship: It was clearly written by a Jew. Old Testament allusions are translations from Hebrew (they do not follow the wording and even sometimes the meaning of the LXX). The internal witness of the book is that it was written by Jude brother of James. While there were several Judes (Judases) mentioned in the NT, only one is mentioned as a brother of James, that is Jude, brother of Jesus. James was also a common name at the time, but only one James was well known enough to go by, simply, James. That was James brother of Jesus, leader of the Jerusalem church. Both of these factors lead to an identification of Jude as Jude brother of Jesus.

Some have suggested, though, that Jude was a pseudonym for some later author, either writing in Jude's honor/memory, or piggybacking on his authority. Usually this approach is used when the contents of the letter could not have been written during the time frame when the author lived. However, as we saw above, nothing in the letter would have been inapplicable to the 50s or 60s when Jude lived. Also, Jude was too obscure of a figure to be a likely choice of pseudonym.

Audience: Who was Jude written to? Clearly it was written to a Jewish audience. It's not reasonable to assume that a Gentile audience would be able to identify the multiple allusions to Jewish intertestamental literature (1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses). Some have suggested Syria, but I find that unlikely since Jude was not accepted as canonical by the Syrian church. Palestine has also been suggested, but one would expect substantial apostolic activity in Palestine when Jude was written. Also, Aramaic would have been the likely language used for a letter from Jews to Jews. A third suggestion is Egypt. Not only did Egypt have a large Jewish Christian population, but the book was accepted as canonical very early there. Also, apocalyptic literature like 1 Enoch was widely read by their Jewish and Jewish Christian communities. This makes Egypt the most plausible destination of the letter in my opinion.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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...

Book Review: The Great Theologians

In recent decades, one of the biggest problems in the church has been a lack of interest in and attention to church history and historical theology. Lately we have begun to see a correction, but this correction needs to flow down to the laity as well. That is where The Great Theologians: A Brief Guide by Gerald McDermott comes into play. In this book, McDermott highlights eleven of the most influential theologians in the history of the church: Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Schleiermacher, Edwards, Newman, Barth, and Balthasar [1]. Each get between fifteen and twenty pages, in which McDermott provides some brief biographical notes, an overview of some key aspects of their theology, a section detailing what the current church needs to learn from them, a short selection from their writing, questions for group discussion, and suggested further reading. That seems like a lot to fit into fifteen or twenty pages, but McDermott does an admirable job. He selects vigne...