Skip to main content

Jude 1-4

Vs. 1: Who was Jude? Jude and his brother James were brothers of Jesus (Mt. 13:55 - Jude and Judas are the same name). Why then does Jude identify himself as brother of James and servant of Jesus rather than brother of Jesus? Jude calling himself a servant (or slave in some translations) isn’t an expression of low status, i.e., Jude isn’t saying, “I’m just a lowly servant of Christ.” Servants of powerful figures had great status and authority in the ancient world because of their connections to the one they served. What Jude is saying is that he gets his status and authority because he is Jesus servant. He could have claimed that status and authority on account of his blood relationship to Jesus, but in Jude’s mind what really mattered was that Christ had chosen him to be his servant. That was the source of his authority.

Jude then calls those receiving the letter called, loved in God the Father, and kept in Jesus Christ. God called them into relationship with him. In that relationship they experience the depths of God’s love for them, and because of the work of Jesus on the cross they can trust that God will never let them go.

Vs. 2: Jude here wishes them an abundance of mercy, peace, and love. They have received these things through their relationship with God, and Jude expresses his hope that they continue to abundantly receive. Jude’s goal in the first two verses is to strongly ground them in the fact that they are secure in their relationship with God.

Vs. 3: Jude was planning to write a letter of a more general form, but that didn’t happen. He received word of the situation and it was so serious that he had to break off his plans and write this letter.

He exhorts his readers to contend for their faith. Apparently it was being challenged by someone. In the following verses he spells out what that challenge was. He does not, though, explicitly tell his readers, yet, how to contend for their faith. At this point they simply know that they must do it.

Vs. 4: A common problem in the early church was a misunderstanding of the doctrine of grace (actually this has been a problem at every point of church history, including the present). These infiltrators believed that because they had received grace from God that it did not matter how they lived, for Christ’s blood atoned for all of their sins. Perhaps they were saying something along the lines of Romans 6:1b, ‘…Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?’ (TNIV). Both Paul and Jude vehemently reject that notion. Jude claims that these people are ungodly and the lifestyle that they live is tantamount to rejecting Christ. They’re not willing to be Jesus’ servants. They won’t accept him as the Lord. Grace does not give you free reign to live as you wish. Grace gives you the desire and ability to live as God wishes. Their lifestyle and rejection of Christ brings them under God’s judgment.

There are two groups, the beloved and the others. The beloved receive God’s love and mercy and peace and are kept by him. The others, because of their ungodliness, don’t, even though they think they do. This section sets a strong tone at the start of the letter. Our lives must be lived in conformity to the grace we have received. While we’re not perfect, immorality and ungodliness cannot characterize us.

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