1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Some put this against 2 Tim 2:24, which says, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive..." and Prov. 18:6. The Hebrew root ribh which the KJV translates [in 1611!!] as "contention" in Prov 18:6 has the meaning "strife, dispute" according to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon. This prevents the passage from having anything to do with the content of Jude 3. As for 2 Tim 2:24, context again defuses any claim of contradiction. In 2:14-19 the admonition is to avoid "quarreling about words", that is, hair-splitting issues that have little if anything to do with the main points of sound doctrine. In v23 the admonition is to avoid things having to do with "foolish and stupid arguments", which leads to v24: "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel." We see that the context indicates that Paul is hardly speaking against earnestly contending for the faith. On the contrary, he speaks against silly arguments over things of little consequence. [Note that in 1:13 Paul does exhort Timothy much in the same way that Jude 3 exhorts its readers.] The word in Jude 3 derives from a word meaning to "labor fervently" or shoot for a prize. It is not related to the word used in Timothy, which has to do with quarelling.

"Contend" comes from the world of Greco-Roman sports [Bauc.JP, 31] and points to an earnest striving against competition. "Once” indicates opposition intent on changing the message.

4For there are cerain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jude appeals to the precedent of Egypt and the angels as an example of what happens to those who turns their backs on or reject God. To an ancient person a "probability" like this served as an example. The angels are an even stronger precedent being as close as they once were to God (and that, for the sake of moral depravity).

7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

This one's another that the mavens of political correctness have hooked on to; what about it? Some (like even Bauckham in his commentary on 2 Peter and Jude [54]) seek a loophole through the use of the word "strange" and the fact that it was angels the men of Sodom were after; hence they say that this but condemns sex with angels, not homosexuality. An interesting point, except that Genesis 19:5 says, "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Did the men of Sodom know that these were angels? If they did, why were they not running for the hills?

The incident Jude cites does serve as a nice parallel to his own illustrations (drawn from the Enochian traditions of evil angels who took on flesh to consort with the daugthers of men); but to read "angelic" into "strange" simply does not work. The word "strange" is (ironically) heteros, and it means elsewhere simply "other". Well, it may be replied, isn't (incarnated!) angel flesh "other"? And if Jude has it in for homosexuality, how can he call human flesh "other"? This is yet another case where context interprets for us, however: Because of the explicit and undeniable Jewish revulsion towards homosexuality, there can be no doubt that a Jew would regard homosexual sex as targeting "other" than its object.

The referral to Sodom raises another issue. Kelly [261] in his commentary on Jude says that the Sodomites were proverbially associated with homosexuality, which would make the Sodom reference alone sufficient to say that homosexuality is in mind. Bauckham disagrees and says that most references to the Sodomites, in the OT, in intertestamental lit, and as well in post-NT Jewish lit, had to do with their poor hospitality, hatred, pride, or general sexual misbehavior -- but only one (associated with Philo; see here) specifically notes homosexuality. Of course, it's not hard to point out that raping someone homosexually is hardly an act of hospitality; why is this not inclusive of their sin? In the end Jude 7 is not as clear as other passages in speaking against homosexuality; but the cultural milieu demands not that homosexuality be excluded, but that it was but one of the sorts of crimes against others that the Sodomites engaged, as a result of their attitude.

8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

The actions of Michael are used as a "probability" (precedent-setting parallel) for the proper way to regard "dignities" above one's level; do not accuse directly, but call upon higher authority. Why did these men slander angels? It is suggested that they did so by refusing to accept the authority of anyone connected with the Law [Kist,PJ, 384] and in particular, the role of angels in delivering the law to men [Bauc.JP, 58], or as guardians of the law and/or the created order. Cain, Balaam, and Korah are used as examples of rebellion against legitimate authority, so whatever the specific reason, the general slander was obviously aimed at the authority of angels. I would further suppose that “angels” is used in the general sense of messengers, not supernatural beings, and so is being applied mainly to apostolic messengers, with Jude taking advantage of the play upon the supernatural “messengers” of higher rank, thus using a form of reasoning that what is true of the greater case (eg, Michael didn’t dare slander Satan) will be true of the lesser (the heretics should not slander apostolic messengers).

In the original context, the “accusation” in the story (from the Assumption of Moses) was a case of Satan accusing Moses of murder, and Michael refusing to answer the charge himself. Satan was trying to argue that Moses did not deserve an honorable burial, and thus lay claim to the body himself [Bauc.JP, 60]. The point is not that we should be polite to the devil (!) but that “no one is a law unto himself” [61] as the antinomian heretics wished to claim.

14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Some point to vs. 9 and 14 and ask if the documents these are taken from are meant to be seen as inspired Scripture. Not at all: Paul quotes Menander, Epimenedes, and other Greek authors. This doesn't mean that he considered their works Scripture; it does mean that he thought something they said was sufficiently accurate to be an excellent way to get a point across to his readers, and the same may be said of the other quotes. Paul also apparently uses Wisdom 14:22-31 as a source for his arguments in Romans 1:24-32, and Wisdom 2:23-4 for Romans 5:12-21. Does this reflect a belief that Wisdom was canonical, or worthy of being called Scripture? No: "Wisdom of Solomon's canonicity does not appear to concern Paul, but only the theological arguments in it." Paul was out to make a point, as, most likely, were Jude and the others who quote or allude to apocryphal works.

16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage. 17But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. 20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

V/ 16 probably means that the heretics were playing the normal role of ancient teachers and charging for their services. V. 18 is a clear allusion to the Olivet Discourse warning of those who would abandon their loyalties to Christ.

24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Sources Used