Introduction to 2 Peter and Jude
MOST OF US DON’T LIKE to focus on the negative. And maybe that’s why 2 Peter and Jude would probably come toward the last of most people’s list of “favorite books in the New Testament.” Both these letters—though Jude more than 2 Peter—have a lot of negative things to say. Jude and Peter do not tell us much about the wonderful blessings that God has given his people; but they say a great deal about the dangerous and damnable practices and teachings of certain false teachers. But, even if it might not be our first choice, we all understand that the negative is sometimes needed. When I used to play basketball (mature years and a back injury have forced me to hang up my sneakers), I loved to hear fans cheering my occasional dunks. I didn’t much like hearing my coaches scolding me for failing to box out my man. Yet the scolding was just as important as the cheering in helping me become a better basketball player.
So in the Christian life: We need to hear the negative now and then that we might be warned about dangers and steer clear of them. Peter (in his second letter) and Jude found themselves in situations where the negative was needed. As Jude makes clear (v. 3), he was hoping to write an uplifting, positive letter about “the salvation we share.” But the need of the hour forced him to write a very different kind of letter. Thus Jude, and Peter also, wrote about false teachers. Pulling no punches, they labeled these teachers for what they were: deviant, selfish, greedy, sarcastic, skeptical, destructive. Given the option (which we will probably soon have) of choosing on our cable service the kind of sermon we would like to hear on Sunday morning, not many of us would probably choose “Denunciation of False Teachers.” But it might be the message we most need to hear. We are inundated by allegedly “Christian” teaching of all kinds; and the pluralistic mindset of our age encourages us to be tolerant of this wide range of teaching. Too easily lost in this atmosphere of easy-going tolerance is a concern for truth. This was the concern that motivated Jude and Peter to write as they did. They knew that some things were true and others were false. They believed the Lord when he claimed, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32). And so they used all their energy to plead with their readers to stick to the truth and to reject falsehood—knowing that the decision their readers would make meant, literally, heaven or hell.
False Teaching Then and Now
ONE MIGHT WONDER why this volume of the NIV Application Commentary includes 2 Peter and Jude rather than 1 and 2 Peter. For it would seem natural to group together books apparently written by the same author. The reason for this is simple: 2 Peter and Jude closely resemble each other. Each was written in response to false teaching; the false teaching they oppose appears to be almost the same; and they denounce the false teachers in similar terms. The following chart sets forth a few of the more striking parallels:
Jude | 2 Peter | |
4 | the false teachers’ “condemnation” from the past | 2:3 |
4 | [they] “deny” the “Sovereign [and] Lord” | 2:1 |
6 | angels confined for judgment—“gloomy” (2 Peter) and “darkness” (Jude) translate the same Greek word (zophos) | 2:4 |
7 | Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of judgment of gross evil | 2:6 |
8 | [they] “reject [Jude]/despise [2 Peter] authority” | 2:10 |
[they] “slander celestial beings” | ||
9 | angels do not bring “slanderous accusation[s]” | 2:11 |
12 | [the false teachers are] “blemishes” | 2:13 |
12 | Jude: “clouds without rain, blown along by the wind” | 2:17 |
Peter: “springs without water and mists driven by a storm” | ||
18 | “scoffers” following “their own evil [Peter]/ungodly [Jude] desires” | 3:3 |
These parallels, while not lengthy, are nevertheless striking; many involve words and expressions not found elsewhere in the Bible and, as can be seen, they occur in the same order in both letters. And there are numerous other minor agreements that we have not included above.
How are we to explain this startling similarity? A few interpreters think that the parallels between the letters reveal no more than that Peter and Jude were using a common early Christian oral tradition as they wrote.1 But most scholars are convinced that the parallels point more naturally to some kind of literary relationship. One way of understanding this relationship is to think that the same author has had a hand in writing both letters. One attractive hypothesis, for instance, has it that Jude was the scribe (or amanuensis) that Peter used when writing his letter. Jude then added his own note to Peter’s warnings.2 But most scholars think that Peter and Jude borrowed material when they wrote their letters. This could have happened in three different ways: (1) Peter could have borrowed from the letter of Jude; (2) Jude could have used the letter of 2 Peter; or (3) both Peter and Jude could have used another document that we no longer have.
Most scholars favor the first option. They argue that it makes perfect sense to think that Peter would have wanted to expand on Jude, whereas it is hard to imagine why there would have been a need for Jude if 2 Peter already existed. But this argument is far from convincing. Surely one can imagine a situation in which a writer would have wanted to extract certain points from another letter that had particular relevance to a situation. Those who favor the primacy of Jude also claim that a detailed comparison of the two letters shows that Peter is the one who has borrowed from Jude.3 But this is a subjective evaluation. Moreover, many scholars, already convinced of the direction of borrowing, look at the evidence from only one direction, explaining how Peter “redacted” Jude. They often fail to consider the evidence from the other direction. The other arguments usually mounted in favor of the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude are no more compelling.4
Few contemporary scholars argue for the primacy of 2 Peter. Those who did so in the past often appealed to Peter’s apostolic status as a key point. They thought that it would be unlikely for an apostle of Peter’s rank to borrow from an nonapostle. But I think this objection rests on an inappropriate view of apostles—important and authoritative figures though they were, they certainly did not develop their ideas independently of early Christian teaching and tradition. Scholars favoring 2 Peter’s primacy also appeal to a comparison of the details of the texts; with as much success as those who argued the opposite view.
Sensing a stalemate on this issue and finding evidence that could point either direction, a few scholars have suggested that both Jude and 2 Peter borrowed independently from a common source.5 But without any positive evidence to support it, this theory suffers a death-blow from the principle of “Occam’s Razor”: Simpler theories should be preferred to more complicated ones.
My own conclusion is that none of the three usual theories has enough positive evidence in its favor to accept as even a working hypothesis. Nevertheless, if I were forced to the wall, I would probably opt for the theory that has Jude borrowing from Peter.6 My reason for doing so roots in the striking similarity between two texts in these letters:
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. (2 Peter 3:3)
But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” (Jude 17–18)
The text from Jude reads very much like a quotation of 2 Peter 3:3. If this were the case, then the situation would have been something like this: Peter, having written a letter castigating false teachers in a specific community, shared its contents with Jude. Jude then borrowed freely those portions of 2 Peter that were relevant to a similar false teaching that he was dealing with in his community. But I am the first to admit that the identification is by no means certain.7 And so I want to reassert again my skepticism about each of the theories. That being the case, I will not use any of the literary scenarios as a basis for explaining the text. Where relevant and helpful in interpretation, I will note parallels between Jude and 2 Peter. But I will make no assumptions about who has “redacted” whom.
However we explain them, the similarities between 2 Peter and Jude suggest that they are fighting the same kind of false teaching. Since both writers are more interested in condemning the false teaching than they are in describing it, we do not have a lot of explicit information about just what the teaching is. Both make clear that these people are trying to convince others of their false views (see 2 Peter 2:1–3; Jude 19). But the only clear reference to a doctrinal error comes in Peter’s warning about “scoffers,” who are questioning whether the Lord Jesus really will return to judge the world (2 Peter 3:3–4). What Peter and Jude concentrate on, then, is not what these people are teaching but the way they are living. They are obviously concerned that these false “behaviorists” will draw other Christians into their own sinful and destructive lifestyles.
What does this lifestyle look like? In a word, these false teachers are libertines. They assume that the grace of God revealed in Christ gives them the “liberty” to do just about anything they want to do (2 Peter 2:19–20; Jude 4). They have no use for any kind of authority (especially spiritual authorities, like angels; cf. 2 Peter 2:10–11; Jude 8–9). And so they engage in all manner of “sins of the flesh”: illicit sex, perhaps including homosexuality, excess drinking and eating, greed for money (2 Peter 2:13–16, 18–20; Jude 16, 19). What is especially shocking is that both Peter and Jude make clear that these profligates are claiming to be Christians (2 Peter 2:1, 21–22; Jude 4).8 They are, in effect at least, “denying the Lord” and are therefore destined for the condemnation reserved for those who rebel against the Lord.
I have drawn this brief profile of the false teachers from both letters; and, indeed, as we have seen, Jude and Peter describe them in similar terms. But there is one major difference: Only Peter mentions their scepticism about the return of Christ. This may mean that we are wrong to lump the false teachers of Jude and 2 Peter together.9 But the similarities between the two descriptions greatly outweigh this single clear difference. Furthermore, Jude’s brief reference to “scoffers” (v. 18) may suggest that he, too, is aware of the false teachers’ mockery of the idea of the Lord’s return. We certainly should not make the mistake of reading what Jude says into Peter or vice versa. And Jude and Peter may very well be dealing with different specific outbreaks of the false teaching. But that the false teaching they combat is pretty much the same is clear.
Can we identify more precisely what this false teaching was? Many have tried, but without much success. The most popular suggestion is that Jude and Peter are condemning gnostics. Gnostics had a hard time believing that the spiritual and the material worlds could interact. They therefore denied that Jesus could have been both divine and human. More to the point, they often were not greatly concerned about sins “of the flesh”—for what a person did with one’s flesh had little, if anything, to do with his or her spiritual existence. Peter and Jude’s description of the false teachers’ immorality certainly fits the gnostics.10 But the descriptions are so vague that they also fit almost any group who combined skepticism about future judgment with an immoral lifestyle. And neither Peter nor Jude makes any mention of what was the most characteristic doctrine of the gnostics: their dualism. Moreover, full-fledged Gnosticism did not come into being until the second century—much too late for either Peter or Jude (see below on authorship and date).11
What Peter and Jude are dealing with, then, is an outbreak of false teaching that saw in the free forgiveness of the gospel a golden opportunity to indulge their own selfish and sinful desires (see 2 Peter 2:19; Jude 4). We find similar outbreaks in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians) at about the same time or a bit earlier, and a bit later in some of the churches in Asia Minor.12
Since we know so little about the heresy combatted in these letters, we cannot match it with an exact counterpart in our own day. But this certainly does not mean that Peter and Jude have nothing to say to us today—far from it! For the saying that “there is nothing new under the sun” applies to false teaching as much as it does to anything else. Perversions of Christian truth tend to fall into a few quite recognizable patterns. And the pattern we can discern in Jude and 2 Peter is one easily recognized in the church today.
Some church-goers may not even understand the truth about Christ’s return in glory, attributing any such ideas to the “lunatic fringe.” Many more of us do confess that the Lord is coming again and that we will stand before him to answer for our behavior in this life. But how easily we put the truth of future judgment so far into the realm of theory that it has little to do with how we actually live. We may even sport a bumper sticker that proclaims the return of Christ, but we move through the days, months, and years without really coming to grips with that truth. And certain trends within the church also deflect our interest in the time of judgment to come. The tendency today, reflecting certain counseling approaches, is to help Christians “feel good” about themselves. The result can be an imbalance in our perception of two key Christian truths: that God graciously forgives our sins through his Son and that God will call Christians to account for their behavior. Like the people whom Jude condemns, we can end up, in practice, “chang[ing] the grace of our God into a license for immorality” (Jude 4). “God will forgive; that’s his business,” was the pagan Voltaire’s way of excusing his sin.
The letters of 2 Peter and Jude warn us about any tendency to treat sin lightly, to suppose that an immoral lifestyle can be pursued without any penalty. Perhaps we think that the problems in our day are not as serious as those with which Jude and Peter had to deal. But when we hear all too regularly of pastors sleeping with women in their churches and of believers lying and cheating on tax forms, we must wonder if things are all that much better today. The condemnation that Peter and Jude pronounce on the false teachers of their day warns us about the danger of even beginning to follow that road. And they teach us the way to avoid this destructive path: by “remembering” (taking to heart, internalizing) the message of Christ and his apostles.
Now that we have a general idea about the problems that both Peter and Jude are fighting, we have learned what is most important to our transfer of the meaning of these letters to our day. But the more we know about each of these letters and their situations, the more we will be able to apply them accurately and pointedly. So we now want to look at a few more specifics about each of these letters.
Peter and His Letter
WHEN WE TURN to the book of the Bible we call 2 Peter, we find an immediate claim about that book: that it was written by “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1). Few readers of the New Testament would fail to recognize this name. Simon was one of the first apostles called by Jesus to follow him (Mark 1:16–18 and parallels; cf. John 1:40–42). Along with James and John, he seems to have been part of the “inner circle” of apostles (see Mark 5:37 and parallels; 9:2 and parallels). It was Simon who was led by God to recognize that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Son of God; and, as a result, Jesus himself designated Simon “Peter” (meaning rock) (Matt. 16:13–18; cf. John 1:42).
Simon Peter comes both to typify the apostles and to stand out as their leader. His denials of Jesus before the cross and resurrection revealed the unavoidable weakness of Jesus’ followers before the coming of the Spirit; and his bold proclamation of Christ in Jerusalem after Pentecost put him in the front rank of early Christian leaders (see Acts 2–5). Persecution eventually forces Peter to flee Jerusalem (12:17), although he returns for the Apostolic Council a few years later (ch. 15). Subsequent references to Peter in the New Testament are few, though he seems to have spent some time in Corinth (see 1 Cor. 1:12; 9:513).
Then, about A.D. 60, Peter seems to have been in Rome; and from here he wrote a letter to Christians in northern Asia Minor—our canonical 1 Peter.14 We have only later legends to go by in reconstructing the last years of the apostle. But, in addition to 1 Peter, we have evidence that Peter ministered for a time in Rome.15 He cannot, however, as Irenaeus (end of the second century) claims,16 have been a co-founder of the church in Rome along with Paul. For Paul makes clear in his letter to the Roman Christians that he had not founded the church; and his claim not to be “building on someone else’s foundation” (Rom. 15:20) makes it unlikely that Peter had been heavily involved in the church there. Early and, it seems, generally reliable tradition has it that Peter perished, with Paul, in the persecution of the Emperor Nero in Rome (A.D. 64–65).17 But the tradition that Peter was crucified head downward is late and unreliable.18
This is undoubtedly the Simon Peter whose name we find in 2 Peter 1:1—a supposition confirmed by the author’s personal reminiscence of the Lord’s prediction of his death (1:13–14; see John 21:20–23) and the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16–18). Why is it, then, that a quick survey of recent commentaries reveals that more than half of them do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter? Scholars cite six main reasons. (1) The letter is filled with language and concepts drawn from the Hellenistic world. (2) The false teaching combatted in the letter is second-century Gnosticism. (3) The letter’s assumption that the letters of Paul were part of Scripture (cf. 3:15–16) was not possible in the lifetime of the apostles. (4) References to apostolic tradition (cf. 3:2, 16) betray a late date, when there was a fixed ecclesiastical authority (what some scholars have labeled “early Catholicism”). (5) The early church expressed a lot of doubts about whether 2 Peter should be accepted into the canon. (6) The letter takes the form of a “testament,” in which a person would write in the name of a great hero of the faith after that hero’s death.19
Scholars who are convinced by these arguments that Peter could not have written the letter therefore conclude that it is pseudonymous—literally, “a falsely named” book. Many books of this sort were written by Jews in the centuries just before and just after Christ—books claiming to be written by Adam or Enoch or Moses or Abraham. Someone in the early church, these scholars think, continued this tradition, writing a letter in the name of the apostle Peter after the latter’s death. This author would not have been out to deceive anyone; he would have seen himself adopting a popular literary device that people would have immediately recognized for what it was—just as we have no problem understanding exactly what is going on when our pastor dresses up in a Middle Eastern costume for a sermon and pretends to speak to us as Elijah.20
Viewed in this light, it is possible to believe at the same time that Peter did not write 2 Peter and that the Bible is without any error. And we have therefore seen in recent years a few evangelical scholars beginning to express openness to the idea that 2 Peter, along with some other New Testament letters, may be pseudonymous.
But we think this is an unfortunate move. The acceptance of 2 Peter as both pseudonymous and inerrant requires us to believe that the claim in 1:1 would not have been understood in its day as a claim to authorship—which is unlikely. We have many examples of certain kinds of books being written in someone else’s name—apocalypses especially. And we have evidence that some people, even in the early church, wrote letters in other people’s names (cf. 2 Thess. 2:2). But what we also find is that such books and letters were always regarded with suspicion. L. R. Donelson concludes after a thorough study: “No one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know of a single example.”21
The very fact that 2 Peter was accepted as a canonical book, then, presumes that the early Christians who made this decision were positive that Peter wrote it.22 Those who did not think that Peter wrote it barred it from the canon for this reason. In other words, we have to choose between (1) viewing 2 Peter as a forgery, intended perhaps to claim an authority that the author did not really have—and therefore omit it from the canon; and (2) viewing 2 Peter as an authentic letter of the apostle Peter. The “have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too” theory of a canonical pseudepigraphon does not seem to be an alternative.
As a matter of fact, however, we do not think the reasons scholars put forward for thinking that the apostle Peter could not have written this letter are at all convincing. Let me deal briefly with each of the objections we listed above.
(1) The Greek of 2 Peter has an undeniable literary and even philosophical flavor, quite different from the Greek of 1 Peter. But (a) there is nothing in the letter that Peter, after many years of ministry in the Greek world, could not have written; (b) Peter may have deliberately chosen to write in this style because of the needs of his readers; and (c) the more commonplace Greek of 1 Peter may be the result of the help of an amanuensis (Silvanus?—see 1 Peter 5:12).
(2) Nothing the false teachers were propagating is unknown in the first century church.
(3) Other New Testament texts suggest that the words of the Lord and certain New Testament books were being regarded as scriptural from an early period.
(4) While some Christians expressed doubts about 2 Peter, many others accepted the book from the beginning. People probably had doubts because the book was not widely used and because there were so many Petrine forgeries about.
(5) Nothing in 2 Peter suggests any kind of ecclesiastical organization or hierarchy; and “early Catholicism” itself is a dubious concept.
(6) Resemblances between 2 Peter and the “testament” form are undeniable. But the use of this form within a letter renders comparison with other “testaments” dubious.23 We should accept the plain meaning of the letter’s opening words and accept it as an authentic letter of the apostle Peter.
If the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, the letter must have been written before about A.D. 65, when reliable early tradition records Peter’s death as a martyr at the time of the emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome. And it was probably written shortly before his death. Peter himself suggests this when, referring to the Lord’s prophecy about his death in John 21:18–19, he says the time of his departure from this life is near (2 Peter 1:13–14). Peter probably borrows in his letter from the ancient Jewish “testament,” in which a spiritual leader used the nearness of his death to add special force to his warnings and admonitions.24 We should picture Peter, then, writing probably from Rome,25 and perhaps with Nero’s persecution already underway. The apostle senses that the time for the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy about his martyrdom had come and thus writes a final note of advice and caution before his end.
We do not know much else about the circumstances of this letter. Peter addresses it “to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (2 Peter 1:1). This vague identification has led Christians in the past to denote 2 Peter as a “catholic” (in its original meaning of “universal”) or “general” letter—that is, a letter written to the Christian church at large. But 2 Peter gives every indication of being written to a specific group of Christians, who are being bothered by certain false teachers and who have received at least one of Paul’s letters (3:15). We would know rather specifically where these Christians lived if 3:1, where Peter refers to his letter as “my second letter to you,” means that this second letter was written to the same people as was 1 Peter. For 1 Peter is addressed specifically to Christians living in several provinces in northern Asia Minor (modern Turkey).26 But we cannot be certain of this; Peter may just as well be referring to a letter we no longer have.27
The most we can say, then, is that the Christians Peter writes to probably lived in Asia Minor, Macedonia, or Greece, since these are the regions in which Paul ministered and to which he addressed his letters. For this same reason, we can also surmise that at least most of the Christians Peter addresses in the letter were Gentiles. The opening verses of the letter might also point to a Gentile audience. Peter says that these Christians have “received a faith as precious as ours” (2 Peter 1:1), where the “ours” probably refers to Jewish Christians. And Peter’s warning about escaping “the corruption in the world caused by evil desires” (1:4) fits Christians from a Gentile background better than Jewish Christians. To be sure, some scholars have argued for a Jewish audience because of the many allusions in chapter 2 to Old Testament and Jewish traditions.28 But we know that Gentile converts to Christianity early became acquainted with the Old Testament; and each of the allusions Peter makes would have made good sense to those who had this kind of knowledge.
The language of the letter points in the same direction. Many scholars find it difficult to believe that Peter, the Galilean fisherman, could have used some of the philosophical and religious terminology that we find in 2 Peter. But we should see this as evidence that Peter has adapted his message to his audience. By using “religious” language that his readers would have been familiar with, he “contextualizes” the gospel to meet their needs.
Outline of 2 Peter
I. The Letter Opening (1:1–15)
A. Salutation and Greeting (1:1–2)
B. “Strive” to Grow in Knowledge of Christ (1:3–11)
C. The Weight of Peter’s Words as One Near Death (1:12–15)
II. The Body of the Letter (1:16–3:13)
A. Christ Will Certainly Return, as Promised (1:16–21)
1. Peter Himself Saw Christ’s Final Glory (1:16–18)
2. The Prophecies Are Utterly Reliable (1:19–21)
B. Growth in Christ Requires That We Recognize and Resist False Christians (2:1–22)
1. Peter Warns About the Coming of False Christians (2:1–3)
2. Peter Reminds His Readers That False Believers Will Be Condemned But True Believers Saved (2:4–10a)
3. Peter Details the Sins of the False Christians (2:10b–16)
4. Peter Warns His Readers by Showing How the False Christians Will Suffer for Turning from the Truth (2:17–22)
C. We Must Hold Fast to the Promise of Christ’s Return (3:1–13)
1. The False Christians Deny the Return of Christ (3:1–7)
2. Christ Will Certainly Return and Bring an End to This World (3:8–10)
3. Peter Encourages Godly Living in Light of the End of the World (3:11–13)
III. The Letter Closing: Strive to Grow in Knowledge of Christ (3:14–18)
CHRISTIANS AND NON-CHRISTIANS alike know who the apostle Peter was (however much their understanding of him may be distorted and incomplete). But few Christians have heard of Jude apart from the name of the biblical book that they may know is buried somewhere toward the end of their Bible. This ignorance is not surprising. For the name “Jude” occurs in most English versions (e.g., NIV; NASB; NRSV) only in Jude 1 in the New Testament. In fact, however, the Greek word behind our English Jude (Ioudas) occurs forty-three other times—usually translated “Judah” (to refer to the Old Testament patriarch or to the territory that takes its name from him) or “Judas.” The latter name usually denotes Judas Iscariot, Jesus’ betrayer, but there are references also to four other men named Judas: “Judas the Galilean,” an infamous revolutionary (Acts 5:37); “Judas son of James,” one of the Twelve (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13); “Judas, also called Barsabbas,” an early Christian prophet (Acts 15:22, 27, 32); and a brother of Jesus named “Judas” (Mark 6:3).
Any of the last three men could have written this letter. But Jude further characterizes himself in the opening of his letter as “a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (v. 1). Now almost any Christian could claim to be a “servant of Jesus Christ,” but the James Jude mentions is almost certainly the man who became a prominent leader in the early church (see Acts 15:13–21; 21:18; Gal. 2:9) and who wrote the letter we now have in the New Testament. And this James was a “brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19; see also Mark 6:3/Matt. 13:55; John 7:5).29
But if Jude was then himself a brother of the Lord Jesus, why does he not mention this when he identifies himself? An early Christian theologian, Clement of Alexandria, thought that Jude may have deliberately avoided the title given to him by believers, “brother of the Lord,” in favor of a title that focused on a point of greater significance for his ministry and for his right to address other Christians: “servant of the Lord.”30 This is probably on the right track. Like James in his own letter, Jude sees no point in claiming a physical relationship to Jesus that brought him no spiritual benefit and that did not give to him any special authority.31
While we can be rather sure that the letter of Jude was written by a brother of Jesus with that name, we can be sure of almost nothing else about this letter. We can assume that the letter was written sometime between about A.D. 40 (to allow time for the false teaching to develop) and A.D. 80 (when even a younger brother of Jesus would have been at least seventy years old). But where to place it within this time period is not easy to decide. Many scholars date the letter on the basis of a specific identification of the false teachers. But, as we have seen, we cannot be sure about who these false teachers were. Others date Jude by reference to its relationship to 2 Peter. This is a more fruitful approach. To be sure, we have concluded that we cannot pin down the literary relationship between the two letters. But the degree of similarity between the two does suggest that they were dealing with similar false teaching, and probably at about the same time. Second Peter, as we have seen, was written toward the end of Peter’s life, in the middle 60s. We should probably date Jude at about the same time.
To whom was Jude writing? The evidence points to a “Jewish-Christian community in a Gentile society.”32 Jude’s quotations from Jewish noncanonical books suggests that his audience was Jewish in background. But the libertine lifestyle of the false teachers is more associated with Gentiles than with Jews. Probably, then, these false teachers are either themselves Gentiles or have been influenced by Gentiles. Where was this Jewish Christian community located? We simply cannot know. Paul’s reference to the “Lord’s brothers” in 1 Corinthians 9:5 suggests that Jude may well have traveled extensively in the eastern Mediterranean world; and there are many locales that fit the circumstances of the letter.
Outline of Jude
I. Introduction (1–2)
II. Occasion and Theme: Contending for the Faith (3–4)
III. Description and Condemnation of the False Teachers (5–16)
A. The False Teachers Are Destined for Condemnation (Three Scriptural Examples) (5–10)
B. The False Teachers Living Ungodly Lives (Three Scriptural Examples) (11–13)
C. The False Teachers Are Destined for Condemnation (Illustration from Tradition) (14–16)
IV. Closing Appeal: Holding Fast to the Faith (17–23)
V. Concluding Doxology (24–25)