Читать книгу Jude and 2 Peter - Andrew M. Mbuvi - Страница 10

Letter Opening and Greeting (vv. 1–2)

1Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ, the brother of James, to those who are beloved and called in God the father and are kept safe in Jesus Christ; 2Mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.

Jude’s letter greeting, while still in keeping with Jewish salutations, is slightly distinct from Paul’s “Grace and peace,” (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4–9; Phil 1:3–11; 1 Thess 1:2–4; 2 Thess 1:3; Phlm 4–7; 2 Tim 1:3–7) but is not a typical Greek letter greeting which was simply chairein (“Greetings”), as seen in James 1:1.80 Jude replaces chairein with heleos (mercy) where Paul usually uses grace, and adds Christian love (agapē), which Paul does not usually have in his greetings. Mercy (Hebrew—chesed) and peace, likely originate from the typical Jewish salutations of shalom (“peace”), which is more than just a wish for peace but includes the notions of wellness, prosperity, and wholeness.81 And since Jude ends the epistle with two mentions of mercy (v. 24), both of which are related to the safe keeping of the believers until eternal life, then it must also serve as an inclusio that encapsulates the eschatological context of the message.82

The author of this brief letter identifies himself as Jude (Grk. Judas or Judah), a common Jewish name (and calls himself a “slave of Jesus” and “brother of James” (cf. Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3). In ancient literature, it is typical to identify oneself as son of so and so, which makes Jude’s identification with his brother rather atypical.83 The most plausible reason for doing so would be that this brother is well known and highly regarded among the recipients of the letter. James, the brother of Jesus (also called the “Just”), had risen to become a leading member of the early Church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal 2:9, 12).

If this is the case, it is also peculiar that Jude chooses not to identify himself as the brother of Jesus but instead as a slave (doulos). However, it is no more peculiar than James (1:1) who in his epistle does not call himself “brother of Jesus” but uses the same exact phrase as Jude in identifying himself as, “a slave of the Lord.” As Bauckham explains it, “Palestinian Jewish-Christian circles in the early church used the title ‘brother of the Lord’ not simply to identify the brothers, but as ascribing to them an authoritative status, and therefore the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term.”84 This may be even more perplexing for Jude, however, if the majority of his audience was Gentile.

For most scholars then, the traditional identity of Jude as the brother of Jesus (Matt 13:15; Mark 3:21, 31, 6:3; John 7:5) remains the name’s most plausible identity.85 Scholars, nevertheless, remain divided as to whether Jude actually wrote the letter or someone else did so in his name (pseudepigaphy).86 Critics have pointed at, among other things, the erudite Greek language and rhetorical skill of the letter as evidence against Jude’s authorship.87 However, these and other concerns of authorship have been fairly convincingly answered by Baulkham, and more recently by Green.88

Undoubtedly, then, the word slave is here used metaphorically, as a description of the type of commitment that the author perceives himself as having toward Jesus who is the Christ (the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic mešiah (translated as Messiah, meaning anointed one or more accurately understood as one who is anointed by God for a special mission).89 Just as a slave is fully under the master’s ownership and lordship, Jude understands his place in this relationship as one where he is fully and wholly under Jesus’ lordship.

Given that slavery was not necessarily a desired status in the Greco-Roman world it is not necessarily an appealing self-descriptor. However, it was not uncommon for those who owned slaves to use them as spokespersons on their behalf. Such occasions vicariously infused the slave with vested authority by playing the role of a quasi vicegerent. By implication then, Jude is aware that slavery to Jesus brings a certain honor by association with the glorified Lord, while at the same time allowing him a semblance of humility.90 Parallels can be seen, in an Egyptian inscription where Primos and Ioukoundos, though described as “slaves of Caesar,” were highly regarded since they occupied the office of synagogue leader and president, and head of gymnasium, respectively:

In the 25th year of Caesar, on the 22nd of the month of Hathyr, at the assembly that occurred in Paratomos of the synod (synodos) of the god emperor Caesar Augustus, whose synagogue-leader (synagōgos) and president (prostatēs) is Primos, a slave of Caesar, and whose priest is Ioukoundos, a slave of Caesar, and whose head of the gymnasium is Alexandros, with most of the members assembled.”91

The same interplay between the honor and humility found in Jude is also present here. A biblical parallel is in Luke 14:15–24, depicting a parable of Jesus where the slave, acting on behalf of the master, is able to act violently against freepersons. The authority the slave exercises emanates not from himself, but from his master who invests him with authority.92

Besides connection with Jesus, Jude also claims to be a sibling of one with significant repute within the larger Christian community, and a leader of the church in Jerusalem—James (Acts 12:17; 15). Jude once again manages to stake a claim of authority while all the time retaining an air of humility.

The only difficulty with the title doulos (slave) would depend on the actual social status of those addressed. If they are freepersons, then the notion of addressing oneself as a slave, even metaphorically, may not endear the author to his audience. However, whose slave you are, may matter in such cases, just as we have seen in the examples above. One is bound to listen to an important person’s slave when the message communicated is understood to be, without doubt, from the master.93 Yet, it is also possible that the identity of doulos may have been deliberately chosen by Jude to challenge the false teachers’ self-perception as those with freedom to do whatever they wanted.

Overall, if Jude’s audience is—Gentile as the Byzantine Lectionary asserts—and if this is understood in light of v. 3 (our common salvation) where the author stresses the commonality of his faith with that of the recipients of the letter, it would suggest the possibility that he finds the need to identify with an audience that does not share a common heritage with him. For this reason, by finding the need to highlight the shared or common salvation, he intends to remove any doubt that may prevail among the readers about their place in God’s plan of salvation. In this regard, the likelihood would be that the author is of Jewish heritage whose close identification with a Jewish messiah figure (his self-identification as brother of James, and therefore, half-brother of Jesus puts him in a privileged position) whose intent is to make a conscious choice to identify with believers whose heritage puts them outside of this racial (or seeming privileged) relationship to Jesus.

Not only is the audience assured of this common salvation, but the author wants to ascertain this as a concrete commitment—it is secured by Jesus, the Messiah. This is an affirmation not only of the reliability of the security over time, but also the confidence of its ability to, always reliably, protect from any danger.

Fusing the Horizons: True Christian Identity

As an African, I am strongly aware of the fact that tribal identity is a central part of all African communities. Just like doulos (slave), the concept of “tribe” has negative connotations and has been used to denigrate African social structures in colonial and postcolonial discourse. I am fully aware of this but I choose to use the term anyway since it provokes similar reactions to doulos, and also it provides the parlance of the menacing “tribalism” (ethnocentrism), itself a byproduct of colonial construction, fully infused (for good or ill) into the psyche and language of the Kenyan community. Tribes have for millennia provided the structure of the society, safeguarded the cultural elements and preserved the languages of the communities. Tribes have played (and continue to play) a central role in shaping the identity of individuals in Africa. Thanks to the colonial borders, however, African countries have had to confront the centrality of the tribal identity as it has stood in direct conflict with national identity. As nationhood (ideology) has been placed before tribalism (bloodline), the struggle to restructure African communal identity has ensued.

Similar to early Christian converts’ Christian-Pagan identity struggles, the church in Africa has been plagued with competing identities making for challenging situations for the individual Christians. In the African church, age-old tribal identities and allegiances continue to provide some of the stiffest challenges for Christian converts.94 For example, during the ensuing post-election violence in Kenya, driven in many respects by tribalism (as well as political reasons), one of the most disheartening scenes was when a church, full of women and children of one tribe seeking refuge from violence, was set ablaze by a marauding mob of a neighboring tribe, killing most of the people within.95 Among the perpetrators, identified by some of the survivors, were neighbors whose identities as members of Christian communities was known. How could people identifying themselves with the Church participate in such violence? One possible culprit in such a case would be the assumption that the Christian identity, despite its presence in the country for more than two hundred years, never quite took root enough to overcome the tribal identity as the primary identity.

Jude’s restructuring of his identity vis-a-vis the person of Jesus, provides a useful lesson on this matter. Jude, while he could have chosen to use the bloodline (brother of Jesus) to construct his identity, instead chooses to identify himself as a slave of Jesus (a theological construction). Jude prioritizes his theological identity over what perhaps others would have preferred, the bloodline that would have given him more claim to authority as a sibling of the Lord. Instead, by not only downplaying the use of biological identity as his primary one, and instead using a theological identity that also embraces a deep humility, he aligns himself with Paul who cautions that in Christ old things have ceased and all things are made new, and we can no longer regard each other on the basis of blood (flesh) (2 Cor 5:16–17).

What seems like a subtle and somewhat insignificant move by Jude thus turns out to be a most crucial element that converts to Christianity must emulate. This was what the rest of the Kenyan church community’s reaction evidenced, as it led the mobilization of assistance for all the displaced victims of the violence, irrespective of tribal or religious affiliation, and sought to establish a Truth and Reconciliation commission.96 True Christian identity should incorporate and transform, without eradicating, all other forms of identity one may possess.

Contending for the Inherited Faith, Against Infiltrators (vv. 3–4)

3Beloved, I am earnestly making this writing to you concerning the common salvation we share, being compelled to write you and encourage/urge you to contend for the faith handed down to the saints/holy ones, once for all.

Jude uses an endearing term, beloved (also in v. 17 and v. 20), to address his readers as a way of either identifying an already close relationship with them, or perhaps in an attempt to seeking that closer tie. In terms of ancient rhetoric, this is his establishment of an ethos (trustworthy character) that should then establish his credibility to be able to address his audience with authority.97 This is in-keeping with early Christian communities to construct their communities as “families” with fictive kingship (1 Cor 4:14; 2 Cor 7:1; Phil 4:1; 1, 2, 3 John; 1 Peter 2, etc.). He elaborates this further with his reference to the shared bond of salvation (koinos soteria) in order to establish, without doubt, whose side he is on. This would be vital especially if, as we reckon, the audience may be of Gentile origin while Jude is Jewish.98 While it reflects a warm regard for his audience, it stands in stark contrast to his strong vilification of the opponents later in vv. 5–9.

Jude then informs his audience of his compulsion to write to them in order to encourage them to stand up for the faith in light of the perceived danger of infiltrators. The phrase he uses, contending for the faith, need not be understood simply as attacking the infiltrators (even though Jude does denounce them), but vv. 5–19 must be understood in light of vv. 3–4 and vv. 20–23. Ultimately, the readers must overcome through faith (pistis) and resistance, the infiltrators’ message.99 Their condemnation is already pronounced (vv. 17–18), and will be a definite divine act.

Even after assuring the community of the shared faith, Jude notes that the faith they are contending for is one received from the holy saints (hagiois pistei). The question then becomes, i) is faith here a reference to a body of teachings or the acts of exercising belief? If the former then this may imply a later period of Jude’s provenance, in the post-apostolic era; ii) does saints here mean the Jewish community as the chosen chasidim? Or does he mean his own audience and all people associated with the Judeo-Christian faith? If the former, then this would seem to conflict with his desire to make the largely Gentile audience, feel like part of the inheritors of the faith. By declaring, that this faith was given once and for all, means it would not be given again, at least not in the manner that it was first given. As such, Jude’s community can only come by it through their relationship with those who first received it. If the latter, then it means that while the reference may be to Jewish saints of old, it also includes his readers who have inherited this faith and now are recipients of God’s salvation.100

The language of struggle (epaginitzō) used here was also commonly used in reference to athletes and their endurance and determination when competing in a race—“pep talks” to get them fired up for the competition.101 The call then is one that recognizes that the exercising of faith, called upon here, is one where they have to “stand up” for the faith and literally defend it. Like soldiers in battle defending their territory, the audience is urged, in essence, to exert itself in a deliberate effort to defend the faith, fully aware that actual dangers are entailed in this process.

Besides the fact that the audience may not share a common Jewish heritage with the author, the compulsion to write to them originates from his concern for their struggles in relationship to the shared Christian faith. He is under conviction of the gravity of the situation that he feels obligated to write a letter that in essence pronounces warfare against those who he believes to be active enemies presently assailing the community of Christians.102 It would seem to be the case that the community is struggling in regards to faith, perhaps, due to persecution. The sense of urgency that the author announces in v. 3, by pointing out how this letter is a product of a compulsion and earnestness, points to a scenario where the readers are finding it difficult to maintain their faith in Jesus Christ, and maybe questioning their place in the larger community of believers.

Like any conflict, there are casualties expected and so the urgency to struggle is with the awareness that something has to be done, and there is no choice about getting involved. What they contend for is described as that which was received by the saints, once and for all. If those from whom they received it had not guarded it, then there may have been nothing to inherit.

For this reason, the readers have to exert effort to protect the precious gift that they have received. This suggests that there is an identifiable body of normative, authentic and authoritative teaching to which Jude refers, which was inherited and now is entrusted, to the community for “safe-keeping.” They must not allow it to be in any way altered or damaged. Not only was it a once-and-for-all exercise, which cannot be replicated, it was also a once-and-for-all body of teaching, to which there can be no accretions or deletions. Anybody claiming otherwise is thus to be regarded as deceptive and be treated as an enemy of truth. These are the people who are about to be revealed in the next verse as those who have infiltrated the community of Jude and brought with them a teaching other than the one that was delivered to the community of the holy ones/saints, and is now inherited by the community.

Arrival of Infiltrators (v. 4)

4For some men have stealthily infiltrated [among you], whose judgment was long ago/before written about; ungodly, they who instead of our God’s grace have preferred giving themselves over into licentiousness and denied our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Indications are that usually there was a strong guard among Greco-Roman associations against what each group considered external meddlers or busybodies, who did not belong, with invocation of irrevocable divine punishment on such perpetrators.103 Similarly, in Jude, the condemnation of the infiltrators involves declaration of immutable divine judgment (whose judgment was long ago/before written about). The appeal to this judgment as having been pronounced long ago is Jude’s use of a rhetorical device, which, in a society where the more ancient a claim was the more respected, establishes authoritative grounds on which to build his case against the infiltrators.104 It is also a way of establishing credibility with his audience, that while the case he brings against the infiltrators may be immediate, it nevertheless finds support in ancient divine pronouncements against them (v. 14).

The language of stealth (pareisduō) here conjures a scenario where the enemy manages to infiltrate the camp and, like the Trojan horse tactic, fans out among the unsuspecting enemy wrecking havoc from within. The infiltrators come in a guise, and only later is their true form revealed. This echoes the scene in Gal 2:4, where the opponents are identified as Judaizers who claimed to arrive with blessing from the leaders in Jerusalem and infiltrated the Galatian church. Paul describes them as infiltrating into the community of the Galatian gentile-Christians, accusing them of spying on his freedom, with the intent of imposing on the Galatians the bondage of the law of circumcision. Paul goes on to lay out arguments that show the contrasting understanding of what freedom in Christ entails for him in contrast to that of the Judaizers, with whom he is at loggerheads.

Unlike Paul, who does lay out clearly what the Judaizers were advocating for before refuting their teachings, point by point, Jude seems to prefer to generally stereotype and caricature the infiltrators using stalk language found in Greco-Romans writings to typecast enemies.105 If that understanding holds, it would mean that it is unlikely to determine with any precision what the teachings of the infiltrators in Jude may have been. This difficulty of pinning down exactly what their teachings were makes it complicated, if not impossible, to determine with any accuracy the philosophical or theological group the infiltrators in Jude may have belonged to.

Similarly, the issue of religious freedom is at the root of the concerns in the letter of Jude. However, the origin and nature of the infiltrators’ beliefs are not presented with any clarity, as they are in the letter to the Galatians. Throughout Jude’s letter, the infiltrators are characterized as asebeia—ungodly or impious (vv. 4, 15, 18; cf. 2 Pet 2:5), sexual perverts (vv. 4, 8, 10), blasphemous (vv. 8–10; cf. 2 Pet 2:2) and antinomian (vv. 4, 10; cf. 2 Pet 3:17).

Accusations of sexual promiscuity and unusual sexual practices were common in ethnographic descriptions of outsiders in first-century Greco-Roman group polemics.106 So, when Jude proceeds to construct the image of the infiltrators, he does so not by giving actual descriptions of the perceived enemies, but by falling back on a weapon of warfare—propaganda rhetoric! Just like in the case of warfare scenarios where the next step would be to identify and uproot the enemy, Jude follows this with the Greco-Roman stereotypes that caricature enemies as sexual perverts, ungodly, and barbarians.107 Thus, it is likely the case that what may be happening in Jude is a case of competing groups each seeking to have the upper hand theologically within the community.

Ungodliness (asebeia) is here, in v. 4, paired with sexual perversion (aselgeia) that the infiltrators are accused of exchanging for God’s grace (charis). Ungodliness’ immediate contrast to aselgaia (sensuality, licentiousness) has tended to be understood as depicting a more specific notion of Christian freedom that the infiltrators abuse with their wanton sexual activity. Grace, a common Christian term for salvation through Jesus Christ (Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8; 2 Thess 2:16; Heb 12:15; James 4:6; 1 Pet 1:2, 10: 2 Pet 1:2, 3:18; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4) most probably encompasses the same meaning here. The opponents are despising divine authority and ultimately rejecting salvation.

However, while this is a plausible reading, the combination of ungodliness and sexual perversion, evident in other parts of the epistle (vv. 8, 16, 18, 23), may reflect more of a stereotyping accusation than substantiation of actual behavior among the infiltrators.108 A similar pattern is seen in v. 8, the notion of the opponents as dreamers, a possible allusion to dreams as means of divine guidance is also juxtaposed with an accusation of “defilement” which also may presume sexual or other moral, misconduct. Furthermore, the insinuation that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved the sexual desire of a different flesh also again seems to presuppose some form of angelic sexual contact. All these juxtapositions of what Jude considers godly or moral contra that which he perceives to be sexual deviance seems to imply that these are caricatures of two diametrically opposed extremes, which, like light/darkness, day/night or true/false, make a stark distinction between the two spheres of either morality or spirituality.

Similarly, Charis, cannot simply be narrowly defined here, if throughout, aselgeia’s constant contrast is with the notion of godliness.109 Therefore, the meaning of grace here has to be the larger meaning encompassing salvation, since aselgeia is more than simply sexual aberration and represents a form of sinfulness that ultimately results in the denial of our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jude’s emphasis that the only (monos) lord and master is Jesus (cf. also v. 24) also reflects a clear anti-Empire rhetoric that sets up Jesus as the anti-Caesar, who deserves the readers’ total loyalty.110 The Majority Text adds theos (“God”—“the only master, God and Lord, Jesus Christ”), making the contrast that much more plain, given that the Roman Emperor in the Imperial cult was considered divine—a god or son of the gods.111 As Philip Harland points out, “Fittingly honoring gods and emperors was a means by which families, associations, cities, and larger regions helped to ensure the safety and security of their communities.”112 This would place Jude’s community in direct challenge to, not only other groups and associations within the Empire, but also at odds with the expectations of the Roman government. However, it is important to clarify that even though Jude’s rhetoric and beliefs may indicate anti-Empire sentiments, it is unlikely that Jude himself, and Jude’s community, was overtly actively involved in anti-Empire activity. Minority groups, including Christian groups like Jude’s, operated mostly under the rudder of Empire, unless deemed to pose a direct threat.113

Fusing the Horizons: Jude’s Infiltration Language in Light of an African Proverb

A Swahili proverbs states, kikulacho kiko nguoni mwako (that which consumes you is concealed within your clothing). This is an apt description of Jude’s claim of his community’s infiltration by the opponents. According to Jude, they have stolen into their midst and are wrecking havoc, seemingly unbeknownst to his audience. The common understanding of the Swahili saying is that the source of one’s trouble is usually those closest to him or her. It is usually used as a warning to the fact that those most likely to cause you the gravest harm tend to be the ones closest to you, since they know both your strengths and weaknesses.

Jude might as well have quoted this proverb to his readers for it captures his concerns about his community, that those that are endangering their faith have clandestinely become part of the community. They have endeared themselves to the believers and unless one is observant enough, he or she may not realize that the infiltrators are doing grave harm to the community. They exploit both the strengths and the weaknesses of Jude’s community and that is why Jude’s letter is so urgent and uncompromising. The suitability of the proverb is made even clearer by v. 23 of Jude where he uses the metaphor of soiled clothing to describe the spiritual state of those who have been misled by the infiltrators. Both the Swahili proverb and Jude urge caution, vigilance and self examination!

Three Examples of Divine Judgment of Ancient Israel, as Warnings (vv. 5–7)

5But wishing to remind you, even though you all know of a people that the Lord at one time saved from Egypt, and those who did not believe afterwards were destroyed.

Verses 5–19 have been called a midrash,114 have been analyzed as the centerpiece of a hortatory speech,115 and have been identified as a three-part structure of a Greco-Roman letter.116 The tripartite structure is itself an identifiable pattern within classical Greco-Roman epideictic (praise-blame) rhetoric, culminating in a climax, just as in Jude’s case.117 The pattern of the citation of Scripture followed by an explanation and application by Jude, occurs three times in this section and makes all these analyses plausible.

The expression you all know tends to be interpreted by scholars as a rhetorical device used by the author in line with other NT writings such as Rom 15:15; 1 Cor 15:1 and 1 Pet 1:12, 31. The implication is that the readers do have prior knowledge of the stories of Israel engraved in the writings even though they emanate from different sources (Sir. 16:7–10; CD 2:17—3:12; 3 Macc 2:4–7; T. Naph 3:4–5; m. Sanh 10:3).118 The reference to laos (a people) maintains the notion that not all the people that left Egypt in the Exodus event were eventually guilty of sin. From among them were those who got saved and those who, bound to their apostasy, were not. A case has also been made that, without the article, laos here would indicate that not all who left Egypt were believers.119 However, elsewhere Israel is called laos tou theou (people of God—Exod 19:5; 1 Pet 2:9), and Jude’s truncated version of laos may assume that the audience is aware of such a reference.

The point may be that even though all who left Egypt were laos, from among them were those who rebelled and paid the price of divine judgment. In this same say, it would suggest that the false-teachers may also have been part of Jude’s community and having rebelled now risk divine judgment.120 If this were the case, it would explain why the author assumes that his audience is unaware of the infiltration by those espousing contrary teachings. If these were people initially familiar to the audience prior to this point, then it would explain this assumption on the part of the author.

Jude is using examples from the Hebrew Scriptures as warnings of the judgment that awaits the infiltrators and any who would dare tag along with them. Even while referring to the history of Israel, Jude’s rhetoric retains an anti-Empire stance. The reference to ho kurios (the Lord) as the one who once (hapax)121 saved (sōzō) can be a contrast between God’s ability to save versus proclamations of Caesar as savior. That Caesar was publicly hailed as despotes kai soteros (master and savior), makes this contrast rather pointed.122 It also continues the military imagery that we noted earlier (cf. p.31). In this case, it foregrounds the Lord as the true divine warrior that rescued his people from bondage.

Jude also points out that, while usually the Exodus is held up as an example of God’s salvation of Israel (the perspective that is consistent with the Passover celebration and the accompanying Seder meal where the emphasis is on the remembrance of divine salvation of Israel), the lesson he chooses to highlight is that of those who were subsequently destroyed for unbelief, even after initially being saved. The emphasis here then is on judgment, even as the aspects of God’s salvation are on display.

6Not even the angels, who in the early days did not carefully guard themselves but forsook their own dwelling/home, in eternal darkness and fetters/chains they are reserved/detained, the rest of their days, for the great judgment.