Introduction
As is the case with 2 Peter (see the introduction to the commentary there), the study of the use of the OT in Jude is beset with several challenges.
(1) Clearly, either 2 Peter borrows from Jude, or Jude borrows from 2 Peter. Though in briefer compass, the challenge is not unlike the way 1–2 Chronicles uses antecedent material or the way the Synoptic Gospels display interdependencies. Most scholars today accept that Jude was written first, and that 2 Peter quotes extensively from it. Although that is probably correct, I will nevertheless present the material in canonical order. More important, perhaps, is the fact that Jude clearly cites extrabiblical material (as do some other NT books), and this has prompted a preponderance of scholars to read the OT allusions through the lenses of those extrabiblical books. This is not unreasonable, but some care needs to be taken not to read too much into Jude. For example, if Jude overlaps in content with one element found in, say, 1 Enoch, it does not necessarily follow that Jude buys into all that 1 Enoch says on the subject.
(2) There is only one passage where, some scholars say, Jude quotes the OT (Jude 9); others call even this an allusion. In light of the number of allusions, however, it is mildly surprising that Jude does not depend to any substantial degree on the LXX. He picks up some of the LXX’s expressions, of course, but frequently the snippets are so brief that one is unclear as to whether these expressions are simply part of the common stock of Jewish-Christian idiom (see commentary on Jude 11, 12 below). More interesting yet is the fact that Jude may on occasion be dependent on the MT rather than the LXX (see commentary on Jude 13 below).
(3) Once again it is necessary to avoid consideration of such common expressions as “mercy, peace, and love” (Jude 2), for although they enjoy deep rooting in the OT, it is impossible to link such expressions to one or two passages or to a specific event.
The opening of the body of the letter finds Jude urging his readers to “contend for the faith that the Lord has once for all entrusted to the saints” (v. 3). The verb “contend,” not to mention the thrust of this brief letter, shows that this contention is not with unbelievers outside the church but rather with false teachers within the church. That is why v. 4 draws attention to the way these false teachers have “slipped in among you.” Of the four charges that Jude lays on them in this verse, one is of interest to us here: Jude asserts that their “condemnation was written about long ago.” To what is he referring?
Some have argued that Jude has in mind earlier Christian writing, perhaps passages such as Acts 20:29–30; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:13; 2 Pet. 2:1–3:4. This view is sometimes said to be confirmed by Jude 17–18 (see Moo 1996: 230; Vögtle 1994: 26–27; Bauckham 1988: 36). But it is far from clear that “long ago” (palai) would have been used for references so recent. A few have argued that Jude is thinking of heavenly books that already have the judgment of sinners written down (e.g., Kelly 1969: 250–51), but the evidence for this view is far from persuasive (see Bauckham 1988: 35–36). The most plausible interpretation of Jude 4 is that the author has in mind ancient Jewish prophecies found in the Scriptures, for these are the examples that he proceeds to list in vv. 5–7, 11. Taken together, they demonstrate that, at least typologically, the judgment that befell certain people in ancient times points to similar judgment falling on those with similar failings in Jude’s own day. These ancient prophecies may, in Jude’s mind, include prophetic words from 1 Enoch (see commentary on Jude 14–16 below).
Jude mentions the exodus, but 2 Peter does not. Yet Jude’s mention of the exodus does not focus on the manner in which it often functions in the NT in some positive typological way to point toward the “new exodus” from the slavery of sin. The positive thing that this text says about the exodus is primarily a setup for what follows: “I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered the people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe” (v. 5 TNIV). As in 1 Cor. 10:1–13; Heb. 3:7–13, the appeal to the exodus is here primarily a cautionary moral lesson: the people experienced great deliverance given by God, but because they did not persevere in faith, they fell in the wilderness and never entered the promised land (cf. Num. 14; Exod. 32). Implicitly, then, we learn that just because people belong to the right community does not mean that they can escape the judgment of God, any more than could the Israelites after God had delivered them from Egypt and before they had been brought into the promised land. Implicitly, of course, there is a further typological connection between Israel as the people of God at the time of the exodus and the Christians to whom Jude is writing. See further, above, on 2 Pet. 2:5.
A. NT Context: “Angels” Not Spared. Peter and Jude both mention judgment on “angels” and on Sodom and Gomorrah, but only the former mentions the flood, only the latter mentions judgment on Israel after the exodus, and the latter does not set things out in chronological order. More importantly, Peter interweaves into his list the preservation of the righteous, in particular Noah and Lot, while Jude omits all mention of the righteous. The result is that where the two documents substantially overlap, each nevertheless develops its own distinctive rhetorical emphases (see Charles 2005). Whereas 2 Peter presents God as making a distinction, in the final judgment, between the righteous and the unrighteous, Jude’s focus in vv. 5–7 is on compiling a list that provides examples “of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire” (v. 7) and thus functions as a warning to false teachers and those who might wish to follow them in Jude’s day.
B. OT Context. Under the assumption that the OT background to Jude 6 is Gen. 6:1–4, we must ask what the latter passage means. There have been three primary interpretations: (1) the “sons of God” are angels who crossed species lines and married human women, producing “Nephilim” who were “heroes of old, men of renown” (Gen. 6:4); (2) the “sons of God” were kings, judges, and other members of aristocratic nobility who displayed their own greatness by indulging in polygamy and creating harems; (3) the “sons of God” were human males from the putatively godly line of Seth who freely married women from ungodly lines.
Nowadays the majority of interpreters from across the theological spectrum accept the angel interpretation (the list of supporters is very long, but see esp. the discussion in Dexinger 1966; see also Wenham 1987: 138–41). This interpretation is assumed by the LXX, and supported by most early Jewish exegesis, though not quite all (see below), as well as by all the earliest church fathers and some later ones (including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius), but not by some later fathers (Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret). “Sons of God” (in the plural) refers elsewhere in the OT to angels—certainly so in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, and probably so in Ps. 29:1; 89:7; Dan. 3:25 (where bar-ʾĕlāhîn underlies the traditional rendering “mighty ones” or the like found in most English versions). Yet the interpretation does not easily fit the context of the flood, since that judgment is pronounced against humanity (cf. Gen. 6:3–5; note “flesh” in 6:3 [NIV: “mortal”]). According to Jesus, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25), and although excellent efforts have been undertaken to avoid this and other objections to the angel interpretation (e.g., Brown 2002: 52–71; vanGemeren 1981), the niggles make it less than a sure thing.
Those who take the view that the expression “sons of God” refers to kings, nobles, and other aristocrats (e.g., Cassuto 1973; Kline 1961–1962) understand them to be lusting after power, the multiple women being the signs of their success. Kline suggests that they are “divine kings”—that is, kings viewed as in some sense divine owing to the dominant religious commitments of the time. In other words, instead of administering justice under God, they forsook their proper place, claimed deity for themselves, violated God’s will by forming royal harems, and lusted after power. Their children were the Nephilim-heroes (6:4), “evidently characterized by physical might and military-political dominance” (Kline 1993: 115). On the face of it, this explanation makes best sense of “and they took any of them they chose” (Gen. 6:2), and admirably sets the stage for the pronouncement of judgment against “flesh” in the flood. Negatively, however, there is no linguistic warrant outside Gen. 6:1–4 for supposing that “sons of God” refers to “divine kings” or, more generally, to aristocratic ruling figures, whereas the reading of “angels” has a long track record, including the LXX.
The view that “sons of God” refers to the line of Seth, while “daughters of human beings” refers to non-Sethian women, not only suffers from an absence of philological support but also has few elements in its favor compared with the “divine kings” view.
A few scholars have suggested the possibility that the first and second interpretations might be combined; that is, human rulers (the second interpretation) who claimed some sort of divine status might still fit the requirement of some kind of “angelic” encroachment (the first interpretation) if they were viewed as somehow demon possessed (so Clines 1979; Waltke 2001: 115–17; Gispen 1974: 221).
A few scholars over the years, however, have argued that Gen. 6:1–4 is not the OT background to Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4, but rather that Jude and Peter have in mind the prehistoric fall of angels. Some sort of prehistoric fall of the embodied serpent (Gen. 3) is doubtless presupposed by Genesis, but one is hard-pressed to find explicit discussion of the event. This interpretation of Gen. 6:1–4 sounds a bit like the interpretation of the scarcely known by the still yet more unknown.
C. The Context in Judaism. The interpretation of Gen. 6:1–4 that takes “the sons of God” to be angels (often called “Watchers”) who have sexual intercourse with women is widespread in early Judaism (e.g., 1 En. 6–19; 21; 86–88; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD-A II, 17–19; 1QapGen ar II, 1; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 6:1–4; T. Reub. 5:6–7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10–14). True, a minority rabbinic tradition pronounces a curse on those who take the angel view (Gen. Rab. 26:5; cf. R. Simeon b. Yohai), but this probably does not go back earlier than the mid-second century AD.
Three further comments on this literature should be addressed. First, although various themes are emphasized by these assorted texts from early Judaism, the most extensive tradition is found in 1 En. 6–19. Bauckham (1988: 51) argues that originally the fall of the Watchers in this tradition “was a myth of the origin of evil” but became detached from such mythology about the middle of the first century AD. The account tells how, in the days of Jared (Gen. 5:18), two hundred angels, under the leadership of Šemiḥazah and ʿAšaʾel, rebelled against God, lusted after the beautiful daughters of men, descended to Mount Hermon, and took human wives. Their children were giants who ravaged the earth. The fallen angels themselves taught human beings things that they should not know and many kinds of sin. Ultimately, then, the fallen angels were responsible for the corruption and degradation that brought down from the hand of God the punishment of the flood. The fallen angels, the Watchers, were punished by being bound under the earth until the final judgment; the giants were condemned by being abandoned to destroy each other in incessant battle, and their spirits became the evil spirits finally responsible for the evil in the world between the flood and the day of judgment. What is striking about these accounts is the attempt to shift blame for the flood from human beings to fallen angelic beings.
Second, Jude apparently picks up on at least some of these themes, as does 2 Peter. Yet what is picked up is not the entire “package” taught by 1 Enoch but rather only that these “angels” (angeloi) are kept in darkness, bound in eternal chains awaiting the day of judgment. The point, in Jude, is that their judgment is certain. In 2 Peter the exact nature of the angels’ sin is not specified; Jude initially says nothing about this either, at least while he is talking about the angels themselves, but clearly he links the sexual debauchery of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the next verse, with the debauchery of the “angels” in this verse. Yet Jude’s dominant point is that both groups end up in final judgment under God.
Third, some have suggested that Jude (and Peter after him) knows of, and is perhaps dependent on, the Greek myth of the Titans, recounted in Hesiod’s Theogony. Certainly some Jewish writers identified the Titans with fallen angels or with their giant progeny (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.73; Sir. 16:7; Jdt. 16:6). In this myth the Titans were imprisoned in “Tartarus,” the word that Peter (but not Jude) uses for “hell.” This may be nothing more than the vocabulary choice of someone influenced by Hellenistic Judaism; it is hard to be sure, for already the word is used in the LXX of Job 40:20; 41:24 (Tartarus of the abyss); Prov. 30:16 (apparently parallel to Hades). In other words, appeal to ostensible Petrine knowledge of Hesiod is premature, and in any case it is irrelevant for Jude unless one were to adopt the unlikely position that Jude is dependent on 2 Peter rather than the other way around.
D. Textual Matters. However we understand “the sons of God” in the Hebrew of Gen. 6:1–4, the LXX refers to them as angeloi, which word is picked up in both Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4 and, in the NT, is almost always used of angels, rarely of “messengers,” and never of aristocratic figures such as kings and nobles. In other words, on the basis of philology alone, the angel interpretation seems most credible, unless one accepts the synthesis of Waltke and others who see that the “divine kings” are “possessed” by fallen angels, combining the strengths of the first two interpretations.
E. Jude’s Use of the OT in Verse 6. Crossing the species line is central to the sin in Jub. 5; that is not explicit in either Jude or 2 Peter. Jude is interested in the inevitability of the judgment of these “angels,” whoever they are, rather than in the precise nature of their sin.
F. Theological Use. “The point of this verse is that these fallen angels await eternal judgment. . . . The eschatological judgment of the angels who sinned is sure. They are already in prison. How much more sure is the judgment of those who have denied the Christ who purchased them” (Davids 2006: 226). That is entirely right, even if there remains some uncertainty regarding the referent of “angels.”
A. NT Context: The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude briefly mentions the “sexual immorality and perversion” of “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns”; the latter reference, of course, is to Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela or Zoar (Gen. 14:8; 19:25, 29), Zoar was spared as a concession to Lot.
B. OT Context. There has been a long-standing exegetical debate concerning the interpretation of Gen. 19 that has a bearing on our understanding of how Jude may be reading this OT chapter. What, precisely, is the nature of the Sodomites’ sin? The dominant alternatives are sexual perversion (both homosexual and heterosexual), and betrayal of ancient near eastern hospitality codes.
Recently Morschauser (2003) has attempted a reconstruction and interpretation of Gen. 19 that offers a fresh reading and, incidentally, attempts to exonerate Lot as well—a subject of more interest to readers of 2 Peter than of Jude (I am indebted to Scott J. Hafemann for the reference). Morschauser attaches voluminous ancient Near Eastern parallels to the points that he makes; here I can do no more than sketch the most important elements of his thesis. (1) Genesis 19:1 asserts that Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city when the two visitors showed up. In the social structure of the day this meant that Lot was one of the elders, possibly sitting there in some sort of official capacity. In other words, when he invited the visitors into the city and into his home, he was not acting in the capacity of a private citizen. (2) The throng that gathered before Lot’s house, specifically described as “young and old,” is not made up of all the men of the town (otherwise 19:12 would make little sense) but rather constitutes the representative ruling elite; that is the overtone of “young and old.” (3) This event occurs only a few chapters after the raid against Sodom described in Gen. 14. Doubtless some people were nervous about the possibility of visitors being spies. Lot’s strong insistence that the visitors spend the night not in the square but rather with him in his house (19:2–3) not only displays generous hospitality but also might well be understood as Lot making sure that his visitors did not roam through the city freely. As an official in the gate, Lot, by bringing them into his home, was also keeping an eye on them. (4) When the crowd, “young and old,” demands that the visitors be sent outside so that the crowd might “know” (yādaʿ) them, we are not to think of sexual assault (TNIV: “Bring them out so that we can have sex with them” [19:5]). Certainly this Hebrew verb for “know” can be a euphemistic way of referring to sexual intercourse—indeed, that is unmistakably the meaning in 19:8—but the verb itself has a broad semantic range and can be used in other contexts. In Ps. 139:1–2, 23 it is parallel to ḥāqar (“search out”). In the present context the crowd is asking to “get to know” these visitors, to “interrogate” them, not least to find out if they are spies. Of course, “interrogation” in those days could itself be a fairly brutal business. (5) The one dramatic exception to the ethics of generous hospitality in the culture of the time was the visit of spies. If the visitors were spies, then obviously they could not claim protection under the “rules” of hospitality (note Gen. 42:5–14, where Joseph can handle his visiting brothers roughly once he “determines” that they are spies; or Josh. 2–3 and the demand to Rahab to turn over her visitors). But what makes the demand of this crowd so inappropriate is that Lot is not now a private citizen. He is an official in the gate, he has exercised his judgment in good faith, and they have no right to question him this way. (6) What Lot proposes, then, is not that his daughters be sent outside to satisfy the lust of the perverted throng but rather that his daughters be temporarily held, overnight until the strangers leave town, as a kind of pledge, a hostage exchange. The arrangement was both legal and humane. Providing a kind of hostage was the course Reuben and Judah took at a later period (Gen. 42:37; 43:9). Even the expression “And you can do what you like with them” is, Morschauser asserts, formulaic for “They are in your hands [and of course the protocol is that you keep them safe until this matter is resolved by the departure of my visitors in the morning].” (7) What happens, however, is that this mob of ruling elite will have none of the arrangement and wants to bring about their proposed interrogation by force. Instead of treating Lot with the respect that he deserves, they respond with atavistic rage, dismiss him as a foreigner, and challenge his authority (19:9). What they are trying to do, against a recognized official, is simply anarchic, and God judges them for it. But Lot himself comes out as a righteous man who acts honorably throughout.
It will be interesting to see how this proposal fares when all of Morschauser’s parallels are scrutinized closely by experts in ancient Near Eastern literature and culture. My impression at this juncture is that there may well be something to Morschauser’s reconstruction, but several elements of it make one pause. First, the proximity of the verb yādaʿ (“know”) in 19:8 with an unambiguously sexual sense colors the meaning of the verb in 19:5 more than Morschauser admits. Second, and more importantly, the narrative relating the separation of Abraham and Lot (Gen. 13) depicts the latter as selfish and materialistic. He chooses Sodom and the well-watered plains, even though 13:13 specifies clearly that this is a wicked city terribly offensive to God. The account of Abraham’s intercession in Gen. 18:16–33 also presupposes that Sodom is notoriously wicked. If Lot had become an official in the city, sitting in the gate in his official capacity, what does this say about his moral course? At very least, he is living a terribly compromised existence even before the events of Gen. 19. Third, the parallels of Reuben and Judah offering themselves as substitute “hostages” prompt another reflection: why does not Lot offer himself as hostage, the way Reuben and Judah do, instead of his daughters, until the morning? Fourth, the parallel account in Judges of the estate owner who takes in the Levite and his concubine in the town of Gibeah cannot be set aside as quickly as Morschauser attempts to do. He thinks that the big difference is that the crowd banging on the door is described as “sons of Belial”—they are already a dangerous lot. Their initial demand, that they may “know” the visitor (Judg. 19:22), was also, says Morschauser, as in Gen. 19, a demand to interrogate the man. But one wonders if this is a naive reading. The entire account shows how threatened the Levite and his concubine were as they traveled, and even how unsafe staying in the town square of Gibeah was likely to be. In other words, the estate owner’s insistence that they spend the night with him and not remain in the square has nothing to do with preventing them from casing the city but rather with trying to keep them safe. Similarly with respect to Gen. 19: granted that the city is already declared to be wicked, and granted that there is not a hint that Lot is trying to prevent the visitors from roaming freely through the city to prevent any possible spying activity, Morschauser’s reconstruction sounds too neat, not to say naive. Here and there it feels like exegesis by knowledge of comparable social custom that has to be read into the text rather than straightforward reading of the text.
Sodom becomes proverbial for wickedness and judgment in the rest of the OT (see Isa. 1:9–10; Jer. 23:14; 50:40; Ezek. 16:46–56; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9).
C. The Context in Judaism. The literature of early Judaism boasts a very high number of references to Sodom (for summaries, see Brown 2002: 185–92; Loader 1990: 75–117). Some of the references spell out the sins of Sodom, primarily homosexuality and arrogance (e.g., 3 Macc. 2:5; Sir. 16:8; T. Levi 14:6; T. Naph. 3:4; Jub. 16:5–6; 2 En. 10:4. Wisdom 10:7 points to the barren wasteland of the Dead Sea plain as “evidence” (martyrion, “witness”) of God’s judgment, and 3 Macc. 2:5 specifically asserts that the destruction of the city makes them “an example to those who should come afterward” (RSV). By and large, the theme of Sodom’s judgment is not developed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it plays a major role in the thought of Philo and of Josephus. The NT likewise mentions Sodom in an almost proverbial way (e.g., Matt. 10:15; Luke 10:12; 17:29), though quite remarkably Jesus appeals to Sodom in Matt. 11:20–24 to argue that the city proverbial for its wickedness will have an easier time on the day of judgment than will the towns of Galilee in which Jesus disclosed himself in word and deed—a powerful way of making the point that in God’s accounting there are degrees of responsibility grounded in how much access to revelation we enjoy.
D. Textual Matters. Jude does not deploy peculiar expressions that enable the reader to draw direct links to either the LXX or to Wis. 10:6 (unlike 2 Pet. 2:6–8, on which, see commentary).
E. Jude’s Use of the OT in Verse 7. Jude appeals to the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to underscore their eternal destruction, the inevitability of judgment under God. These towns “serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire” (v. 7), not least since, as Jude goes on to say, the false teachers themselves have been indulging in the pollution of their own bodies (v. 8). As in v. 4 (above), the reading is typological in the sense that Jude is concerned to demonstrate a pattern of divine retribution that anticipates the final judgment.
F. Theological Use. Jude’s concern is to emphasize the inevitability and finality of God’s coming judgment on the last day. This is entirely in line with many texts that promise judgment to come (e.g., Matt. 25:31–46; Acts 17:31; 1 Thess. 5:1–11; Rev. 14:14–20), apart from the saving grace of God.
A. NT Context: The False Teachers’ Lust for Authority Not Rightly Theirs. According to Jude 8, not only do these teachers “pollute their own bodies” but also they “reject authority” and “slander celestial beings.” There is good reason to think that the “authority” that they rejected was that of Christ or of God (see Bauckham 1988: 56–57). But what does it mean to say that they slandered the doxas (NRSV: “glorious ones”)? In the MT the Hebrew equivalent can on occasion refer to famous people (e.g., Ps. 149:8; Isa. 3:5; 23:8; Nah. 3:10; similarly 1QM XIV, 11; 4Q169 3–4 II, 9; 3–4 III, 9), but the LXX never uses doxas (“glorious ones”) to refer to famous people. If these “glorious ones” are angels (cf. the usage in Exod. 15:11 LXX), they are unlikely to be evil angels (only good angels are in view when the expression crops up in passages such as 1QHa XVIII, 8; 11Q5 XXII, 13; 2 En. 22:7, 10). The verb for “slander” (blasphēmeō) has to do with dishonoring or shaming someone, speaking insultingly about someone, or the like. Angels sometimes are seen as the guardians of God’s established order and thus his authority, or the ones who have mediated God’s revelation to us (e.g., Acts 7:38, 53; 1 Cor. 11:10; Heb. 2:2). To “slander” them, then, looks like rebellion against God’s authority, which not only admirably fits the context but also is in line with the rebellious tendencies of the false teachers. So Jude goes on in our verse (v. 9) to give an example of a dispute in which even the archangel Michael is careful not to outstrip his authority.
B. OT Context. The short comment is that there is no OT context. When the burial of Moses is described (Deut. 34:1–8), no mention is made of Michael or the devil. Michael the archangel is mentioned only in Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1. The words quoted at the end of the verse, however, and placed on Michael’s lips as he addresses the devil, are “The Lord rebuke you!” and this expression is indeed found in the OT, in Zech. 3:2. There, however, it is the Lord himself who utters them, rebuking Satan in defense of the high priest Joshua as he stands before “the angel of the LORD.” In the vision in question the high priest Joshua is in the temple courts in the presence of God and represents the Jews. His (and their) accuser is Satan, but if God rebukes Satan, then Joshua (and thus the Jews) is secure before the Lord.
C. The Context in Judaism. The incident that Jude (9) describes we know about from the church fathers, beginning with Clement of Alexandria (Fragments on the Epistle of Jude), who claims that Jude is quoting Assumption of Moses, an apocryphal work. But no extant manuscript preserves the story. There is, however, a manuscript (the Milan manuscript) that preserves another apocryphal book called Testament of Moses, whose ending has been lost. In a long excursus Bauckham (1988: 65–76 [cf. more briefly Davids 2006: 59–63]) argues that this lost ending is what originally preserved the story (that Jude here briefly relates) of Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. The tradition of angels disputing with the devil goes back to Zech. 3:2 (referred to in §B above) and grows stronger in the literature of early Judaism (e.g., CD-A V, 17–18; 1QS III, 18–25; T. Ash. 6:4–6). The idea seems to be that when Moses dies, Satan wants to claim or destroy the body of Moses rather than bury him, perhaps on the grounds that Moses was a failure (just as Satan wants to claim Joshua, in some sense, in Zech. 3:2).
D. Textual Matters. Since we do not have the original source of the narrative, close textual comparisons are impossible.
E. Jude’s Use of This Tradition. The critical expression ouk etolmēsen krisin epenengkein blasphēmias literally means “he did not dare to bring a judgment of slander,” and it could be taken two ways. It could be rendered “he did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation” against the devil (NIV), but it is difficult to comprehend how it is possible to slander the devil. It is better to render it “he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him” (NRSV) or, slightly more paraphrastically, “he did not himself dare to condemn him for slander” (TNIV). (The ESV’s “he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment” is misleading because it takes Greek blasphēmia to mean English “blasphemy.”) The flow of thought, then, is as follows:
The false teachers slander angels, probably accusing them of foisting the law with is moral requirements upon Moses. By way of contrast, Michael, whose position was indisputable, when disputing with the devil in a narrative in which the devil was slandering the character of Moses, would not accuse this fallen angel, whom all agree is evil, of slander. In doing this Michael refused to overstep his proper boundaries and take the place of God in judging evil. (Davids 2006: 62)
It has been suggested that Jude does not himself actually believe the story to be true but cites it to illustrate the moral point that the story makes (in much the same way that someone might cite a Harry Potter book or the film West Side Story to illustrate a point). That may or may not be so, but it is wonderfully difficult to demonstrate.
F. Theological Use. That God jealously preserves his prerogatives in the rebuke of Satan in the latter’s role as “the accuser of our brothers and sisters” (Rev. 12:10) is finally extended, in Rev. 12, to those who overcome the devil not in their own name but rather on the basis of the blood of the Lamb.
A. NT Context: The Hatred of Cain. Cain is the first of three individuals in this verse who are held up as negative examples.
B. OT Context. The OT passage is Gen. 4:1–25. Cain, we are told, was angry with his brother Abel because the latter’s sacrifice was accepted by God, while Cain’s was not. One must infer from Gen. 4:6–7 that the reason for the rejection of Cain’s sacrifice was that he was an evildoer. God challenges him: “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” (TNIV).
C. The Context in Judaism. The literature of early Judaism is extraordinarily rich in references to Cain (e.g., Apoc. Ab. 24:3–5; 1 En. 22:5–7; L.A.E. 2:1–4; 3:1–3; 4 Macc. 18:6–19; L.A.B. 2:1–4; Jub. 4:1–6; T. Benj. 7:1–5 [for a convenient and fuller summary, see Kruse 2000: 235–42]). In both T. Benj. 7:1–5 and Apoc. Ab. 24:3–5 Cain’s murder of Abel is viewed as an act inspired by the devil (Beliar).
D. Textual Matters. The allusion to Gen. 4 is accomplished through one word, the name of Cain, so textual matters do not come directly into play.
E. Jude’s Use of the OT in Verse 11. It is doubtful that Jude thinks that the false teachers whom he excoriates are actual murderers, like Cain. But to say that they followed “the way of Cain” probably calls to mind how Cain’s murder of his brother already stands as the primal example of hatred (cf. T. Benj. 7:5; 1 John 3:11–12).
F. Theological Use. Jude’s assumption that murder and hatred are so tightly connected is worked out in greater detail in 1 John 3:11–12, and it is reminiscent of similar connections drawn by the Lord Jesus (Matt. 5:21–24), delivered in a context (Matt. 5:17–20) in which Jesus insists that his assessment of the law prohibiting murder points in the direction of, and is fulfilled by, a heart free of hate. In the immediate context of Jude, the false teachers do not love the truth “once for all entrusted” to Christ’s people, and this works itself out in animus to the Christians themselves (very much as in 1 John).
Verse 11 (Balaam)
A. NT Context: Wandering from the Truth toward Greed. The false teachers have “rushed for profit into Balaam’s error.” The Greek behind the word “error” (planē) is cognate with “wandered off” (eplanēthēsan) in 2 Pet. 2:15–16. Peter goes into more detail, including reflection on the role of the donkey. Jude is brief and pungent: Balaam’s desire for money is what he condemns, not the subtlety of the advice that he eventually gave Balak, or his confrontation with the angel, or the speech of the donkey.
B. OT Context. The initial account of Balaam (Num. 22–24) provides such grist that Balaam’s name is picked up in many later OT texts (Num. 31:8, 16; Deut. 23:4–5; Josh. 13:22; 24:9–10; Neh. 13:2; Mic. 6:5). Most of these texts stress how God intervened so that Balaam was unable to pronounce the curses on Israel that Balak wanted to hear. The hint of the bad advice that Balaam gave Balak anyway comes in Num. 31:16. That bad advice, advocating the kind of enticement to sin that would bring God’s wrath down on Israel’s head, is what is picked up in Rev. 2:14 (though not in 2 Pet. 2).
C. The Context in Judaism. Balaam’s love for money surfaces in the work of Philo (Moses 1.268; Cherubim 33–34). Especially in the rabbinic literature one finds a strong emphasis on the view that Balaam ultimately received the appropriate “wages” of his wickedness: he was killed by Israel (Num. 31:8: cf. Sipre Num. 157 on Num. 31:9; Num. Rab. 22:4). For the rich lore of rabbinic tales on Balaam, most and perhaps all of which are later than Jude, see the chart in Davids 2006: 253–56. Many of them assert that Balaam himself was sexually perverted—an interpretation grounded in the advice that he gave Balak to encourage crossreligious (and thus, from the perspective of the covenant, highly illegal) marriages.
D. Textual Matters. Several commentators (e.g., Neyrey 1993: 211–12; Bauckham 1988: 268; Davids 2006: 242–43) note that in the three Targumim on Numbers (Pseudo-Jonathan/Yerušalmi, Neofiti, Fragmentary Targum) the donkey actually rebukes Balaam, instead of merely asking why he is being beaten (the biblical narrative leaves the actual rebuke for Balaam’s actions to the angel).
E. Jude’s Use of the OT in Verse 11. Apparently, one of the motives that has encouraged these false teachers into their “error” is simply greed.
F. Theological Use. It is easy enough to compile a list of biblical warnings against a focus on wealth (see the admirable balance in Blomberg 1999). Closest in theological conception to this passage is perhaps 1 Tim. 6:3–10, where false teachers are denounced not only for the content of their instruction but also because they seem to think that godliness is a means to financial gain (6:5). “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered [apeplanēthēsan] from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (6:10).
Verse 11 (Korah)
A. NT Context: The Rebellion of Korah. Jude’s list of three bad examples is not chronological, for if it were, Korah would precede Balaam. Here is another “bad character” who finally meets destruction at God’s hands.
B. OT Context. The Korah in question is not the man whose name appears in the titles of eleven psalms, associated with the temple officials mentioned in 1 Chron. 1:35; 2:43; 6:22, 37; 9:19, nor any of the several descendants of Esau mentioned in Gen. 36, but rather is the Levite leader first mentioned in Exod. 6:21, 24 who, along with Dathan and Abiram, led a rebellion in Num. 16 and is mentioned one final time in Num. 26:10–11. His attack on Moses and Aaron is motivated by lust for their authority and is defended by the argument that since all the people of Israel are holy, therefore Moses and Aaron have no right to take on special authority that other Israelites cannot enjoy. The leaders of the rebellion (Korah and his friends, plus Reubenite leaders) and their households were destroyed by God (Num. 16:31–35).
C. The Context in Judaism. Korah became proverbial for a divisive or rebellious person (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 4.14–21; L.A.B. 16).
D. Textual Matters. Once again, the one-word link to an OT chapter (Num. 16) does not allow for lengthy textual comparisons.
E. Jude’s Use of the OT in Verse 11. Two points are established in Jude’s brief reference to Korah. First, he rebelled against Moses and Aaron and therefore against God and the leaders whom he had appointed. Second, he was destroyed by God. Implicitly, Jude is saying that the false teachers with whom he is dealing are rebelling against properly constituted spiritual authority, and he is announcing that, on analogy with Korah’s fate, they too will be destroyed.
F. Theological Use. The primal sin is the desire to be God (Gen. 3)—that is, to claim an authority that is not ours. The first responsibility of the creature is to recognize his or her creaturely status. Jude’s point is that God is not mocked: sooner or later rebellion against God’s authority will always be judged.
Jude picks up at least two expressions that may well be alluding to OT texts. His accusation that the false teachers are “shepherds who feed only themselves” probably springs from Ezek. 34:2–3, coming in a chapter that delivers a blistering attack against the false “shepherds” of Ezekiel’s day and redolent of the fundamental sin of Balaam as well. Ezekiel 34 also underscores Yahweh’s own promise that he himself would come and shepherd his people. The charge that the false teachers are “clouds without rain” springs from Prov. 25:14: “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of gifts he does not give.” Whereas Jude 12 asserts that the false teachers are “clouds without rain,” 2 Pet. 2:17 says they are “springs without water.” Both images picture promise without delivery, spiritual charlatans. The false teachers promise nurturing, refreshing “water” but provide none. The Bible is replete with images that connect water with wisdom, the law, instruction from God, and blessing, whereas aridity is linked to fruitlessness, chaff that must be burned, and forsaking God (e.g., Ps. 1:3–4; Prov. 13:14; 18:4; Jer. 2:19; 14:3; 17:5–8). For discussion as to whether Jude here is following the MT or merely using inherited linguistic expressions (for certainly he is not citing the LXX in either of these OT allusions), see Bauckham 1988: 87–88; Davids 2006: 71.
Jude develops his series of metaphors from four spheres of nature: land (trees), air (clouds), sea, and heaven (stars), which, Davids (2006: 72) points out, parallel the four spheres of 1 En. 80. Here we have reached the third metaphor: the false teachers are “wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame,” possibly an echo of Isa. 57:20: “But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud.” The ancient Israelites were not a seafaring people, so “sea” images were unlikely to be associated with adventure or mystical communion with nature. Rather, “sea” words conjure up chaos, wickedness, danger, which is one of the reasons why the final biblical vision of the consummation not only announces a new heaven and a new earth but also promises that there will be no more sea (Rev. 21:1). This no more establishes an absence of all hydrological principles in the eschaton than the insistence that God and the Lamb constitute the “sun” or the “light” of the new heaven and the new earth means that we thereby gain insight into the astronomical principles of the eschaton.
The longest and only unambiguous quotation in the Epistle of Jude is not from an OT book but rather from 1 Enoch. There are a couple of OT allusions in the Jude text. Enoch is acknowledged to be “seventh from Adam” (14), and, according to the OT, counting inclusively, he is. The image of God coming with his angelic hosts (14) is drawn from Deut. 33:2: “The Lord came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.” This is a colorful metaphorical description of the theophany at Sinai. The “holy ones” probably are angels, though this is less than certain because “holy ones” in the ensuing verse (33:3) clearly refers to God’s people. Nevertheless, the language is picked up by 1 En. 1:9 and then cited here in Jude to conjure up the divine court coming for final judgment. Indeed, the language of 1 En. 1 anticipates determined, irrevocable judgment and refers to the saints as “elect”: that is how it reads Deut. 33:2, possibly because it reads the Sinai theophany as a type, an anticipation, of culminating revelation to come at the end of the age. In much the same way, Jude anticipates determined, irrevocable judgment (e.g., vv. 4–7), and speaks of believers as the “called” and the “kept” (vv. 1, 24 respectively).
Several brief notes may be helpful. First, in its totality the book of 1 Enoch has come down to us only in Ethiopic, but that version had not yet been created in Jude’s day. What version he did use is debated. His own summary is fairly close to the Aramaic version. Second, Jude says that Enoch “prophesied” about these wicked people and their fate in the judgment that he then describes, quoting the lines from 1 En. 1:9. This suggests that Jude saw this text as preserving genuine prophecy; it does not necessarily imply that he thought all of 1 Enoch was prophetic (a point recognized by Augustine, Civ. 15.23 [cf. Moo 1996: 271–74; Schreiner 2003: 469–70]). In a private communication David R. Jackson, author of the important book Enochic Judaism, suggests that Jude expects his words to be read in some ironic sense. But I have not seen that view defended anywhere in print, convincingly or otherwise, so at this juncture the claim still strikes me as odd. The book of 1 Enoch was also valued by those in the Qumran community. It has been suggested that Jude’s opponents may not have accepted those Scriptures that do speak of final judgment, so Jude cites a book they would accept (Vögtle 1994: 84). In any case, third, we do not find 1 Enoch grouped with the scrolls of Scripture, nor is it ever referred to as graphē (lit., “writing,” but commonly used as a technical expression for “Scripture”).
Bibliography
Bauckham, R. J. 1988. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word.
Blomberg, C. L. 1999. Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions. NSBT 7. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Brown, D. E. 2002. “The Use of the Old Testament in 2 Peter 2:4–10A.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Callan, T. 2004. “Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter.” Bib 85: 42–64.
Calvin, J. 1979 [1551]. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Translated by J. Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Cassuto, U. 1973. “The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man.” Pages 29–40 in Biblical and Oriental Studies. Vol. 1. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Charles, J. D. 2005. “The Angels under Reserve in 2 Peter and Jude.” BBR 15: 39–48.
Clines, D. J. A. “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode [Genesis 6:1–4] in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ [Genesis 1–11],” JSOT 13 (1979): 33–46.
Davids, P. H. 2006. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dexinger, F. 1966. Sturz der Göttersöhne; oder, Engel vor der Sintflut? Versuch eines Neuverständnisses von Genesis 6, 2–4 unter Berücksichtigung der religionsvergleichenden und exegesegeschichtlichen Methode. WBT 13. Vienna: Herder.
Elliott, J. H. 1982. I–II Peter, Jude. ACNT. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
García Martínez, F. 1999. “Interpretations of the Flood in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 86–108 in Interpretations of the Flood. Edited by F. García Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen. TBN 1. Leiden: Brill.
Gispen, W. H. 1974. Genesis 1–11. COT. Kampen: Kok.
Green, E. M. B. 1968. The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Grundmann, W. 1974. Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus. THKNT 15. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Hillyer, N. 1992. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. NIBCNT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Jackson, D. R. 2004. Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars. LSTS 49. London: T&T Clark.
Kelly, J. N. D. 1969. The Epistles of Peter and of Jude. BNTC. London: Black.
Kline, M. G. 1961–1962. “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4.” WTJ 24: 184–204.
———. 1993. Kingdom Prologue. South Hamilton, MA: M. G. Kline.
Kraftchick, Steven J. 2002. Jude, 2 Peter. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon.
Kruse, C. G. 2000. The Letters of John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Loader, J. A. 1990. A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Tradition. CBET 1. Kampen: Kok.
Mayor, J. B. 1979 [1901]. The Epistles of Jude and II Peter. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Moffatt, J. 1928. The General Epistles: James, Peter and Jude. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Moo, D. J. 1996. 2 Peter, Jude. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Morschauser, S. 2003. “‘Hospitality’, Hostiles, and Hostages: On the Legal Background to Genesis 19.1–19.” JSOT 27: 461–85.
Neyrey, J. H. 1993. 2 Peter, Jude. AB 37C. New York: Doubleday.
Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. AB 37. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1964.
Schelkle, K. H. 1980. Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief. 5th ed. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder.
Schreiner, T. R. 2003. 1, 2 Peter, Jude: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
Sidebottom, E. M. 1967. James, Jude and 2 Peter. NCB. London: Nelson.
vanGemeren, W. H. 1981. “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?).” WTJ 43: 320–48.
Vögtle, A. 1994. Der Judasbrief, der 2. Petrusbrief. EKKNT 22. Solothurn: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Waltke, B. K. 2001. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
———. 2005. Proverbs 15–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.