The Epistle of Jude.
The Epistle of Jude.
§ 287. The Epistle of Jude at one time was not placed beyond the uncertainty of doubt by all people. Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 2, c. 23: “Not many of the ancients mention the Epistle of James, just as they do not mention that which is ascribed to Jude, though it, too, is one of the seven that are called ‘catholic.’ Nevertheless we know that they, along with the rest, are read publicly in many of the churches.” In bk. 3, c. 22, he lists the Epistle of Jude among the antilegomena. Jerome, Catal. vir. illustr.: “Jude, the brother of James, indeed left a short Epistle that belongs to the catholic Epistles. Many reject it because in it he draws testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is apocryphal. Nevertheless it has now merited authority by its age and use.” Cajetan, commentary on this Epistle: “This Epistle is of less authority than those that are of certain authority.” Erasmus, commentary [on this Epistle], p. 541: “The passage that Jude quotes here was taken from the apocryphal books of the Hebrews and, as St. Jerome also indicates in his commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, was from the book that they ascribe to Enoch. Consequently, this Epistle was not free from suspicion.” The Histor. eccles. Magdeb., cent. 1, bk. 2, c. 4, gives several reasons that argue that the Epistle of Jude is not genuine.
§ 288. The following, however, prove that this Epistle is apostolic: (1) The inscription. The author clearly calls himself “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.” (2) The subject matter. This Epistle agrees with both the thoughts and words of 2 Peter, of which it contains something like a brief summary and epitome. (3) The testimonies of the ancients. It is counted among the canonical books of the New Testament by the Council of Laodicea, the Council of Carthage, Athanasius, Augustine, and as many of the rest who listed a catalog of the sacred books. The following quote it under Jude’s name: Dionysius (De div. nom., c. 4), Tertullian (De habit. muliebr., c. 5) Origen (in Josuam, hom. 7; bk. 5 on Romans 5), Cyprian (Ad Novatian.), Epiphanius (Haeres. 76), Jerome (on Jeremiah 29, Ezekiel 32, Titus 1, etc.), ** Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., 4), Ambrose (on Luke 8), Augustine (De fide et operibus, c. 65), Cyril of Alexandria (De fide ad Regin.), Isidore of Pelusium (bk. 4, Epistle 58), Cassian (Coll. 4, c. 13), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., bk. 78). ** (4) Eusebius himself (Hist. eccles., bk. 6, c. 11) relates that Clement of Alexandria, in his books of Hypotyposes, wrote brief explanations on the Epistle of Jude as on the other Scriptures, explanations that were still extant at that time.
§ 289. The stronger arguments in support of the contrary are as follows: (1) “In Holy Scripture there appear no traces of the accounts that this Epistle cites. Where is the account of the argument between the archangel Michael and the devil about the body of Moses?” We respond. Just as Paul cites the names of the mages Jannes and Jambres from tradition (2 Tim. 3:8), so also does Jude, regarding that argument of the archangel Michael and the devil. Furthermore, traces of that history are extant in a canonical book. Deuteronomy 34:6 mentions that the Lord buried the body of Moses in the valley of Mount Nebo and that the Israelites did not know the location of that tomb. The devil, therefore, seems to have wanted to reveal this to the Israelites so that they might establish an idolatrous worship of it, just as they later abused the golden serpent to the point of idolatry. The archangel Michael, however, prohibited the devil. At one time there was a writing called 
, “The Departure of Moses from This Life,” or in the Greek, 
. In it are contained the things cited in this passage about Moses’ body. Some understand that argument as though the angel would have offered a service in burying Moses but that the devil was not willing to endure this; so the devil made the accusation that Moses belonged to him because of his murder of the Egyptian, and consequently the devil would not allow Moses to have an honorable burial. The earlier explanation, however, is the more simple.
(2) “The author of this Epistle takes testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is apocryphal.” We respond. Tertullian (De habit. muliebr.) and Bede (commentary on this Epistle) contend that the true Book of Enoch was still extant in the hands of men at Jude’s time. Jerome (on Titus 1) and Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 15, c. 23; bk. 18, c. 38) respond: “Even in the apocryphal books there is some truth, and Jude took this from an apocryphal book.” Nevertheless Jude did not consequently give his approval to the entire book, because the apostle proffers testimonies even from heathen poets yet did not intend to assign canonical authority to them. Some respond that Jude is not looking so much to a prophecy of words [verbale] as to a prophecy of things [reale], that is, to the order among the patriarchs. Just as bodily death, because of sin, held dominion over the first six fathers of the Church—namely, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Jared—but could not exercise its power and dominion in the case of the seventh—Enoch—so also for the six thousand years during which this world will stand, it will hold sway over all men; but in the seventh millennium, which will be the beginning of eternal, heavenly life, it will lose its sting and be abolished completely. (Cf. Chunmannus Flinspachius, De conject. extr. tempor.) However, because Jude says explicitly: “Enoch prophesied also of these, saying: ‘Behold, the Lord came,’ “others make the more probable claim that Jude is speaking about a prophecy of words which, though not put into writing by Enoch, nevertheless could certainly have been known to Jude by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
(3) “The author does not call himself an apostle.” We respond. Neither James nor John in their inscriptions call themselves “apostle.” In the Epistle to the Philippians, Paul calls himself “a servant of Christ,” which Jude also does here and adds “the brother of James,” from which its apostolic authority is gathered clearly. In both letters to the Thessalonians, Paul omits the word “apostle,” yet no one on this account doubts the authority of those Epistles.
(4) “The author signifies that he lived after the apostles: ‘Be mindful of the words foretold by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 17).” We respond. This proves that this Epistle was written after the Petrine and Pauline letters in which those prophecies are extant (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 2:1). By no means, however, does he exclude himself from the number of the apostles with these words. Jude came after some of the apostles—Peter, Paul, and James—but not after them all, because John still survived.
(5) “Jude taught in Persia; therefore he would have written in Persian, not in Greek, if he were the author of this Epistle.” We respond. The Epistle of Jude is a catholic one, that is, written not to a particular church but to all the faithful. Therefore the author wanted to use the most common language of that time (that is, Greek) in his writing. When Paul wrote to the Romans, he used the Greek language, not the Roman one. Clearly the Holy Spirit wanted Greek to be the authentic language in the New Testament, just as he wanted Hebrew to be the authentic language in the Old Testament.
§ 290. Therefore we accept the Epistle of Jude among the canonical books, but of the second rank. Its author Jude had three names, for he was also called Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus (Matt. 10:3;48 Mark 3:[18]49). This Epistle seems to have been written to the same people as 2 Peter, namely, to those especially who from their circumcision had believed the things he signified in v. 17: “Be mindful of the words foretold by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They told you that in the last days scoffers will come,” words that are in 2 Pet. 2:1. He indicates this in v. 5: “I want to warn you, though at one time you knew all things.” You see, this fits the Jews aptly, who were imbued with a knowledge of sacred history from the beginning of time. It also has the same theme as has 2 Peter, along with which it uses the same ideas and words.
Some people think that these Epistles of Peter and Jude were directed especially against the Gnostics. Their heresy, however, came after the times of the apostles, as is evident from Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Therefore it is more correct to claim that they were written against the followers of Simon Magus and the Nicolaitans, whose shameful heresy began to creep in far and wide after the deaths of the apostles. That is why Epiphanius (Haeres. on the Gnostics, who took their beginning from Simon Magus), after mentioning the wicked passions of that former sect, adds: “Disturbed as He was about these people, the Holy Spirit said to the apostle Jude: ‘Whatever as mute spirits they knew naturally, such things are corrupted in them.’ “In this Epistle, therefore, Jude exhorts those who were converted from Judaism to be steadfast in the faith, and he forewarns them of seducers who would corrupt the doctrine of the person of Christ, who would transfer the grace of God and spiritual freedom into license of the flesh, who would deny subjection to the magistracy, and who would stir up dissensions in the Church. Jude frightens them terribly and threatens God’s judgment against them with the examples of the Israelites in the wilderness, of the wicked angels, and of the people of Sodom. Finally, he also teaches how they should be wary of deceits through their faith and prayers.
Furthermore, the seven Epistles that hold the last place in the class of apostolic letters—one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude—are commonly called “canonical,” not because they are solely or especially canonical but because they contain canons or rules and precepts of the Christian life. The old inscription in the Latin codices, and especially in the Greek, calls them “catholic” (by which title they are also cited by Origen, in Eusebius, Hist., bk. 6, c. 19; Dionysius of Alexandria, also in Eusebius, bk. 7, c. 20; Eusebius himself, bk. 2, c. 22; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 17; Jerome, Catal. script.; etc.) because they were written not to some one city and particular church (such as Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, to the Corinthians, etc.) nor to one person (such as Paul’s to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) but generally, to all the faithful scattered in various areas. This explanation for the title does not properly fit 2 and 3 John, yet usage has held that they, too, be called thus because they are connected to 1 John, a catholic Epistle. In his Epistle ad Paulinum, Jerome adorns these catholic Epistles with the following encomium: “James, Peter, John, and Jude published seven Epistles as mystic as they are succinct, equally short and long—short in words, long in ideas—so that he is rare who would see poorly in reading them.” Augustine claims: “Peter, John, James, and Jude have aimed rightly at attacking the opinion that faith (that is, the empty persuasion of faith and the bare profession of faith) without works is sufficient for salvation” (De fid. et operibus, c. 10).