The Muratorian Canon accepts Jude, but indicates that it was doubted by some. Clement of Alexandria commented on it, and Tertullian quotes it by name. Origen acknowledges that there were doubts as to the canonicity of Jude, but does not seem to have shared them. Didymus of Alexandria defends the Epistle against those who questioned its authority on account of the use made in it of apocryphal books. Eusebius reckoned it with the Antilegomena; but it was accepted as canonical by the third council of Carthage in 397 A. D.
The author designates himself as “Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.” There are several persons of that name mentioned in the New Testament, of which only two can come in consideration here, however, viz. Jude, the brother of the Lord, Mat 13:55; Mk 6:3, and Jude the apostle, Lk 6:16; Acts 1:13, also called Lebbeus, Mat 10:3, and Thaddeus, Mk 3:18. It appears to us that the author was Jude, the brother of the Lord, because: (1) He seeks to give a clear indication of his identity by calling himself, “the brother of James.” This James must have been so well known, therefore, as to need no further description; and there was but one James at that time of whom this could be said, viz. James the brother of the Lord. (2) It is inconceivable that an apostle, rather than name his official position, should make himself known by indicating his relationship to another person, whoever that person might be. (3) Though it is possible that the writer, even if he were an apostle, should speak as he does in Jude 1:17, that passage seems to imply that he stood outside of the apostolic circle. - In favor of the view that the author was the apostle Jude, some have appealed to Lk 6:16; Acts 1:13, where the apostle is called ̓Ιούδας ̓Ιαχώβου but it is contrary to established usage to supply the word brother in such a case.
Very little is known of this Jude. If the order in which the brethren of the Lord are named in Scripture is any indication of their age, he was the youngest or the youngest but one of the group; compare Mat 13:55 with Mk 6:3. With his brothers he was not a believer in Jesus during the Lord’s public ministry, Jn 7:5, but evidently embraced him by faith after the resurrection, Acts 1:14. For the rest we can only gather from 1 Cor 9:5 respecting the brethren of the Lord in general, undoubtedly with the exception of James, who resided at Jerusalem, that they traveled about with their wives, willing workers for the Kingdom of God, and were even known at Corinth.
The authenticity of the Epistle has been doubted, because: (1)The author speaks of faith in the objective sense, Ths a fides quae creditur, Jude 1:3, Jude 1:20, a usage that points to the post-apostolic period; (2) He mentions the apostles as persons who lived in the distant past, Jude 1:17; and (3) he evidently combats the second century heresy of the Carpocratians. But these grounds are very questionable indeed. The word faith is employed in the objective sense elsewhere in the New Testament, most certainly in the Pastorals, and probably also in Rom 10:8; Gal 1:23; Php 1:27. And there is nothing impossible in the assumption that that meaning should have become current in the time of the apostles. The manner in which Jude mentions the apostles does not necessarily imply that they had all passed away before this letter was composed. At most the death of a few is implied. But we agree with Dr. Chase, when he judges that the supposition that the apostles were dispersed in such a way that their voice could not at the time reach the persons to whom this letter is addressed, meets all the requirements of the case. Hastings D. B. Art. Jude. The assumption that the heretics referred to were second century Carpocratians, is entirely gratuitous; it rests on a mistaken interpretation of three passages, viz, the Jude 1:4 b, Jude 1:8, Jude 1:19.
Jude addresses his Epistle to “those that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.” On account of the very general character of this designation some, as Ewald, regard the Epistle as a circular letter; but the contents of the Epistle are against this assumption. Yet we are left entirely to conjecture as to the particular locality in which the readers dwelt. Some scholars, e. g. Alford and Zahn, believe that the Epistle was written to Jewish readers, but we are inclined to think with Weiss, Chase, Bigg, Baljon e. a. that the recipients of the letter were Gentile Christians, (1) because the letter is so closely related to II Peter, which was sent to the Christians of Asia Minor; and (2) since the heresies to which it refers are known to have arisen in Gentile churches. Cf. especially I Corinthians and the letters to the seven churches in the Apocalypse.
Many expositors are inclined to look for the first readers in Asia Minor on account of the resemblance of the heresies mentioned in the Epistle to those referred to in II Peter. But possibly it is better to hold with Chase that the letter was sent to Syrian Antioch and the surrounding district, since they had evidently received oral instruction from the apostles generally, and were therefore most likely in the vicinity of Palestine. Moreover Jude may have felt some special responsibility for the church in that vicinity since the death of his brother James.
In the condition of the readers there was cause for alarm. The danger that Peter saw as a cloud on the distant horizon, Jude espied as a leaven that was already working in the ranks of his readers. False brethren had crept into the church who were, it would seem, practical libertines, enemies of the cross of Christ, who abused their Christian liberty (Alford, Salmon, Weiss, Chase), and not at the same time heretical teachers (Zahn, Baljon). Perhaps they were no teachers at all. Their life was characterized by lasciviousness, Jude 1:4, especially fornication, Jude 1:7-8; Jude 1:11, mockery, Jude 1:10, ungodliness, Jude 1:15, murmuring, complaining, pride and greed, Jude 1:16. Their fundamental error seems to have been that they despised and spoke evil of the authorities that were placed over them. They were Antinomians and certainly had a great deal in common with the Nicolaitans of the Apocalypse.
1. Occasion and Purpose. The danger to which these Christians were thus exposed, led to the composition of this Epistle. Apparently Jude intended to write to them of the common salvation, when he suddenly heard of the grave situation and found it necessary to pen a word of warning, 3. In the verse from which we draw this conclusion, the author also clearly states his aim, when he says that he deemed it imperative to write to them that they should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. In order to do this, he pictures to them the disobedient and immoral character of the ungodly persons that had unawares crept into the fold and endangered their Christian faith and life; reminds them of the fact that God would certainly punish those wanton libertines, just as He had punished sinners in the past; and exhorts them to stand in faith and to strive after holiness.
2. Time and Place. We have absolutely no indication of the place where this Epistle was written; it is not unlikely, however, that it was at Jerusalem.
With respect to the time of its composition we have a terminus ad quem in the date of II Peter, about A. D. 67, since that Epistle is evidently dependent on Jude. On the other hand it does not seem likely that Jude would write such a letter, while his brother James was still living, so that we have a terminus a quo in A. D. 62. A date later than 62 is also favored by the Pauline words employed in this letter, in some of which we seem to have an echo of Ephesians and Colossians. Moreover the great similarity between the conditions pictured in this letter and those described in II Peter is best explained, if we date them in close proximity to each other. We shall not go far wrong in dating the Epistle about the year 65.
The older critics of the Tubingen school dated the Epistle late in the second century, while more recent critics, as Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Julicher, Harnack, Baljon, think it originated about the middle or in the first half of the second century. They draw this conclusion from, (1) the way in which the writer speaks of faith, Jude 1:3; Jude 1:20; (2) the manner in which he refers to the apostles, Jude 1:17; (3) the use of the apocryphal books; and (4) the supposed references to the doctrines of the Carpocratians. But these arguments can all be met by counter-arguments, cf. above.
As unprincipled men, under the name of Christians, had crept in, whose chief object was to lead the unstable and weak to a profane contempt of God, Jude first shows, that the faithful ought not to have been moved by agents of this kind, by which the Church has always been assailed; and yet he exhorts them carefully to beware of such pests. And to render them more hateful and detestable, he denounces on them the approaching vengeance of God, such as their impiety deserved. Now, if we consider what Satan has attempted in our age, from the commencement of the revived gospel, and what arts he still busily employs to subvert the faith, and the fear of God, what was a useful warning in the time of Jude, is more than necessary in our age.
1. This Epistle is characterized by its very close resemblance to parts of II Peter (see below).
2. The letter is peculiar also in that it contains quotations from the apocryphal books. The story in Jude 1:9 is taken from the Assumption of Moses, according to which Michael was commissioned to bury Moses, but Satan claimed the body, in the first place because he was the lord of matter, and in the second place since Moses had committed murder in Egypt. The falsity of the first ground is brought out by Michael, when he says: “The Lord rebuke thee, for it was God’s Spirit which created the word and all mankind.” He does not reflect on the second. The prophecy in Jude 1:14-15 is taken from the Book of Enoch a book that was highly esteemed by the early church. According to some the statement regarding the fallen angels, Jude 1:6, is also derived from it. The latest editor of these writings, R. H. Charles, regards the first as a composite work, made up of two distinct books, viz, the Testament and the Assumption of Moses, of which the former, and possibly also the latter was written in Hebrew between 7 and 29 A. D. With respect to the Book of Enoch he holds, “that the larger part of the book was written not later than 160 B. C., and that no part of it is more recent than the Christian era.” Quoted by Mayor, Exp. Gk. Test. V p. 234.
3. The language of Jude may best be likened to that of his brother James. He speaks in a tone of unquestioned authority and writes a vigorous style. His Greek, though it has a Jewish complexion, is fairly correct; and his descriptions are often just as picturesque as those of James, when he compares the intruders to “spots (R. V. ‘hidden rocks) in the feasts of charity;” “clouds without water, carried along by winds,” “autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots,” “wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame ;” etc., Jude 1:12-13. Like James also he employs some words that are otherwise exclusively Pauline, as ἀί̈διος, χυριότης, οἰχητήριὀ, προγράφειν. Moreover the letter contains a few ἅπαξ λεγόμενα.
One of the most remarkable things respecting this epistle, is its resemblance to the second chapter of the second epistle of Peter—a similarity so striking as to make it quite certain that one of these writers had seen the epistle of the other, and copied from it; or rather, perhaps, adopted the language of the other as expressing his own views. It is evident, that substantially the same class of teachers is referred to by both; that they held the same errors, and were guilty of the same corrupt and dangerous practices; and that the two apostles, in describing them, made use of the same expressions, and employed the same arguments against them. They refer to the same facts in history, and to the same arguments from tradition; and if either of them quoted an apocryphal book, both have done it.
On the resemblance, compare the following places: Jude 8 and 2 Peter 2:10; Jude 10 and 2 Peter 2:12; Jude 16 and 2 Peter 2:18; Jude 4, with 2 Peter 1:2, 3; Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 9 and 2 Peter 2:11. The similarity between the two is so striking, both in the general structure of the argument and in the particular expressions, that it cannot have been accidental. It is not such a resemblance as would be likely to occur in two authors, if they had been writing in a wholly independent manner. In regard to this resemblance, there is but one of three ways in which it can be accounted for: either that the Holy Spirit inspired both of them to say the same thing, without the one having any knowledge of what the other said; or that they both copied from a common document, which is now lost; or that one copied from the other.
As to the first of these solutions, that the Holy Spirit inspired them both to say the same thing, it may be observed that no one can deny that this is possible, but is by no means probable. No other instance of the kind occurs in the Bible, and the supposition would not be in accordance with what seems to have been a law in inspiration, that the sacred writers were allowed to express themselves according to the bent of their own genius (see 1 Cor 14:32).
As to the second of these suppositions, that they both copied from a common document, which is now lost, it may be observed, that this is wholly without evidence. That such a thing was possible, there can be no doubt, but the supposition should not be adopted without necessity. If there had been such an original inspired document, it would probably have been preserved; or there would have been, in one or both of those who copied from it, some such allusion to it that it would have been possible to verify the supposition.
The remaining way of accounting for the resemblance, therefore, is to suppose that one of them had seen the epistle of the other, and adopted the same line of argument, and many of the same expressions. This will account for all the facts in the case, and can be supposed to be true without doing violence to any just view of their inspiration. A question still arises, however, whether Peter or Jude is the original writer from which the other has copied. This question it is impossible to determine with certainty, and it is of little importance. If the common opinion which is stated above be correct, that Peter wrote his epistle first, of course that determines the matter. But that is not absolutely certain, nor is there any method by which it can be determined.
In the early Church there was considerable doubt as to the canonicity of this epistle especially because it was not written by an apostle and contained passage from apocryphal books. There are allusions more or less clear to the Epistle in II Peter, Polycarp, Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch. The Muratorian Canon mentions it, but in a manner which implies that it was doubted by some. It is found in the old Latin Version, but not in the Peshito. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen recognized it, though Origen intimates that there were doubts regarding its canonicity. Eusebius doubted its canonical authority, but the council of Carthage (397) accepted it.
In the Epistle of Jude we have the Christian war-cry, resounding through the ages: Contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints! This letter, the last of the New Testament, teaches with great emphasis that apostasy from the true creed with its central truths of the atonement of Christ and the permanent validity of the law as the rule of life, is assured perdition; and clearly reveals for all generations the inseparable connection between a correct belief and a right mode of living.
The writer begins his Epistle with the regular address and apostolic blessing, Jude 1:1-2. He informs his readers that he felt it incumbent on him to warn them against certain intruders, who deny Christ, lead lascivious lives and will certainly be punished like the people delivered from Egypt, the fallen angels and the cities of the plain, Jude 1:3-7. These intruders are further described as defilers of the flesh and as despisers and blasphemers of heavenly dignities, and the woe is pronounced on them, Jude 1:8-11. After giving a further description of their debauchery, the author exhorts the readers to be mindful of the words of the apostles, who had spoken of the appearance of such mockers, Jude 1:12-19. Admonishing them to increase in faith and to keep themselves in the love of God, and giving them directions as to the correct behaviour towards others, he concludes his Epistle with a doxology, Jude 1:20-25.
II. The Purpose of Writing (3-4)
III. Judgment of the Intruders (5-16)
IV. Exhortation to Believers (17-23)
V. Closing (24-25)
I. Greeting (1-2)
II. The Purpose of Writing (3-4)
A. Appeal: Contend for the Faith (3)
B. Reason: Ungodly Intruders Crept in (4)
III. Judgment of the Intruders (5-16)
A. Warning: Old Testament Times (5-7)
B. Extracanonical Example (8-10)
C. “Woe to Them!” (11-13)
D. Extracanonical Example (14-16)
IV. Exhortation to Believers (17-23)
A. Warning: New Testament Times (17-19)
B. Purpose Elaborated (20-21)
C. Have Mercy (22-23)
V. Closing (24-25)