Home

THE LITTLE LETTER FROM JUDE (3-4)

February 1, 2026

By the early to mid-50’s CE, false teachers and teachings had already emerged in the church. These teachings were both doctrinal and practical in nature and led to an imprecise understanding and practice of truth (Jude 4). As a result, they led men and women away from the truth and from the Lord that gave it. Many of these teachings remain with us to this day. For example, both the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses have followed Arius (256 CE-336 CE) in denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, presenting him as less than God. Evangelical Protestants almost always reject the most extreme of these teachings, as did the Council of Nicea (325 CE) when it declared Christ to be homoousias (“of the same substance’) and not merely homoiousias (“of similar substance”) in relation to the Father. They are “no brainers” to us because of their extremity. However, we have a much more difficult time separating from those that teach them. After all, Jude, in this same letter, calls us to rehabilitate them when possible (Jude 22-23).

That is not to say that understanding and maintaining Biblical truth is always easy. As Basil the Great, the primary architect of Trinitarianism as stated in the Creed of
Constantinople (381 CE), reminds us, “Truth is a quarry hard to hunt.” Our statement and defense of truth is at times so difficult that we can only say what the truth is not,
as the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) did in attempting to explain the way in which the two natures of Christ relate to one another. They said, in effect, “We are not sure
what the solution is, but we do know what it is not.” How can humans totally explain the personhood of the God-man?

But this is usually not our problem. We accept a degree of mystery when speaking of the Triune God. But what about the many doctrines taught within his Word that may be more clear but are often considered to be too harsh or divisive to be held as standards of faith and practice?

For example, how should Christians view the doctrine of creation as described in Genesis 1-2? Did God create all things quickly and from nothing (creation ex nihilo), or did he use some other mechanism (old earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolution) to bring all things other than himself into being? Does it matter? How should we understand biological sex and gender? Are we truly limited to male and female, or do other options exist? What about gay marriage, or even monogamous marriage for a lifetime? Abortion? Should I expect or even desire to speak in tongues? what about baptism? What should I think about Israel, the rapture, the end times, and the return of Jesus Christ to the earth? Will there be a final judgment? Does hell really exist and is it everlasting, or is there a better solution such as universalism or annihilationism? Is Jesus the only way to the Father, or do other routes exist? And most significantly, in what way is the penal substitution theory of the atonement necessary, just, or even moral? These are only a few of the questions asked or objections raised both outside and inside the church.

Why does it seem increasingly difficult for the church to agree on the correct content of the faith? Let me briefly suggest four reasons.

First, certain doctrines seem to conflict with our present day sensibilities. The doctrine of a bloody and violent, substitutionary atonement is one such doctrine.

Second, we have a difficult time reconciling our call to love one another while guarding the truth that has been entrusted to us. It is hard for us to say “no,” even when we should.

Third, we live in an era in which diversity is valued more than unity, at least when it comes to Biblical doctrine. Ideas and interpretations that were once carefully considered and found to be incorrect are now more highly prized given their previous marginalization or suppression by the winners of the church wars.

Fourth, we live in the postmodern era, and postmodernism resists closure. We resist certainty. So, conversations often continue longer than they should.

Jude would challenge these assumptions. So should we.

THE LITTLE LETTER FROM JUDE (3-4)

January 24, 2026

How would Jude’s little letter be received today? My own guess is, not well. In an era of “Big Tent Christianity” it seems too binary, too stark, too confrontational for our contemporary sensibilities. However, the distinction between Biblical orthodoxy and heterodoxy, also called “heresy,” between good doctrine and bad doctrine, goes back to the older dispensation, as Jude clearly demonstrates by the historical examples he draws from. It actually begins with the serpent’s temptation as he offers an alternative reading to God’s own (Genesis 3:1-7). And, the need to address this challenge was so pressing that Jude actually changed his course in writing (Jude 3).

Jude’s initial purpose in writing was to address “our common salvation.” Here, Jude is vague: was he referring to our security in Christ in the face of growing opposition by both Jews and the Roman Empire? Or, did he intend to develop a more systematic statement concerning the nature of the redemption we participate in and enjoy? We do not know. What we do know is that God the Holy Spirit, the agent of special revelation, caused him to address those false teachers that have entered the orbit of the church. In other words, his goal became one of “appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Why was this necessary? It was necessary because falsehood springs up wherever truth is preached. The apostle Paul faced the same challenges in places like Corinth. And the American church faces them today. This is not an easy thing to do.

In order to describe what it means to ‘contend earnestly’ Jude uses the word transliterated as epagōnizesthai, which sounds a little like “agonize” in its middle section, probably chosen because of its association with sports such as wrestling. Here the word points toward strong mental exertion. Contending for the truth is more an exercise of the mind rather than body. It involves knowing the truth and knowing how to use it. In the case of Jude’s reference to “the faith,” it likely refers to the body of truth, the Scriptures, that had been given by God up to the point in time when Jude wrote this letter, probably the early to mid-50’s CE.

What distinguishes truth from error? Jude does not specifically tell us. He is concerned for the kinds of errors that result in licentiousness: sins of promiscuity, often of a sexual nature, that reflect disregard for moral norms established by God’s Word that result in the denial of Christ’s Lordship. Notice his later reference to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7). Licentiousness is a result of abusing the liberty that is ours in Christ: it has to do with discarding all standards, particularly that of holiness. The sin reflects the abuse of both freedom and grace.

Doctrinal deviance can be both moral and theological. In the early church, theological challenges to the full deity of Christ as well as challenges to the relationship between his two natures were of great issue. These were addressed at the councils of Nicea (325 CE) and Chalcedon (451 CE), respectively, as the creeds produced by both established the orthodox interpretation of the Biblical teaching concerning both. Both are important in distinguishing between true and false doctrine. Both have serious implications for the doctrine of triunity, which is also helped by the creed produced at Constantinople (381 CE). Other doctrines have been clarified over time. Other doctrines have not. Of importance is that good doctrine has always been challenged by the adversary. The apostle Paul is already combating that in those letters he has already written by the time Jude writes, too. These letters are Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and probably 1 and 2 Corinthians. Paul’s other letters are written after Jude’s is.

You and I live at a good time in history. We possess a completed New Testament that records and explains God’s redemptive work in Christ. Remember, there is no other name in heaven or earth that has made salvation possible for God’s people. And that is worth fighting for.

THE LITTLE LETTER FROM JUDE (1-2)

January 17, 2026

Sandwiched between the three letters written by the apostle John and Revelation, also written by John, is the short letter composed by Jude. By human standards, it is an unenviable position; the writings of John are much better known and more frequently read. It is important to remember, however, that Jude’s letter is the product of divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit and is for that reason included in the Biblical canon (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Regardless of its length or placement, the letter makes its own unique contribution to the New Testament. And it is for that same reason we continue to read, hear, and obey this relatively brief but important Word from God.

In general, first-century Roman letters followed a clearly defined structure, one that is reflected by the New Testament writers. One significant exception is found in the length: typical Roman letters consist of about ninety words whereas those contained in the New Testament are significantly longer. The New Testament letters are didactic in nature, intended to represent their writer who could not be personally present to instruct his readers. One unique feature of these early letters is that each opened with the name of the writer, which we place last. If you would like to learn a little more about letter writing in the early church, Paul the Ancient Letter Writer: An Introduction to Epistolary Analysis (Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 2016) is a good source.

Biblically speaking, Jude (and its variations) is a common Jewish name. Helpfully, the writer identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1a). However, James is also a common name. So, who are these men? The most likely solution is found in Mark 6:3 and the list of Jesus’ brothers recorded there: “James and Joses (Joseph) and Judas (Jude) and Simon.” This allows modern readers to more easily identify Jude. It also allows readers to better understand Jude’s role in the early church, even if by way of history and tradition rather than the Biblical text. If you would like to read a little more about Jude you may want to consult Jude and 2 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament by Gene L. Green (2008).

As Jude greets his readers, and us by extension, he offers two important pieces of guidance.

First, he reminds us about who we are and why we are different from the prevailing culture (Jude 1b). Rather than identifying his readers by name or by the location of their congregation, Jude identifies his readers in terms of our standing in Christ. This gives the letter a wider and more timeless feel, which is why Hebrews through Jude are often identified as “general epistles.” However, Jude probably had a specific audience in mind when he wrote. However, he preferred to address his readers as men and women that have been “called” into a new relationship with the Triune God through the preaching and hearing of the gospel of Jesus Christ that results in our being both “beloved” and “kept” (Jude 1b). No where does God show this to be the case for anyone that does not respond in faith to the gospel. The church is an exclusive group with a well-defined boundary, a well-defined relationship, and a well-defined destiny with God. Further, our new relationship is both deep and permanent. Nothing can or will shake us loose from our Father’s grasp (John 10:27-30).

Second, while the work of salvation is God’s, we serve God’s mission and so require certain divine resources to be successful (Jude 2). Jude will identify the immediate challenge in the next paragraph (Jude 3-4). Here, in what might be described as a “prayer-wish,” Jude draws their attention to three divine resources: mercy, peace, and love. This is not merely formulaic; our call sometimes places us in positions of conflict and vulnerability since the world we inhabit is hostile toward God. We need these three gifts from God. And, as his servants, we also need an increasing capacity to respond to people around us in these ways, including men and women that twist and manipulate the Word of God and lead others into wrong beliefs about God and wrong ways of living before God. Remember, our goal is to reclaim if at all possible. Servants of God need to be both gentle and patient, and the qualities of mercy, peace, and love all contribute to this end.

AN OLD PSALM FOR A NEW YEAR

January 7, 2026

Psalm 90 is an old Psalm, perhaps the oldest. It is attributed to Moses, so is contemporaneous with the Pentateuch, the oldest of the Old Testament documents. While Moses does not offer a specific context for the psalm, it likely reflects his response to all he has heard by way of special revelation as well as observed throughout the entire period of the exodus. This makes the psalm at once both comforting and frightening. The song describes the gulf that exists between a holy God and his less-than-holy people, a breach that God himself would ultimately mend through the incarnation of his Son, Jesus Christ. Despite this predicament, Israel, for whose benefit the psalm is written, nevertheless remains a people that God loves and keeps by his own covenantal initiative.

The psalm consists of three sections; praise (Psalm 90:1-2), lament (Psalm 90:3-12), and prayer (Psalm 90:13-17). While Moses’ original audience is Israel during its forty years in the wilderness, the psalm has a universal “feel” to it in that it addresses the reality of all people everywhere, in the past, the present, and through the foreseeable future. The psalm’s difficulty is found in its subject matter, discussed below. However, it is here that an abiding value of this Word from God can be found. It is this that leads us to wisdom for living, and which makes Psalm 90 well worth studying as the new year begins.

As the psalm opens, Moses, in perhaps the most eloquent reflection on the eternality of God in all the Scriptures, praises God for that very characteristic. When Moses earlier asked God what his name is, how he might be known and proclaimed, God replied, “I Am Who I Am” (Exodus 3:13-14). The name is probably derived from the Hebrew verb meaning “to be.” In other words, God is the one who was, and is, and is to come, in all of his perfections and all of his glory. Before anything else came into being by God’s creative work, he already is. And Moses reminds us that Yahweh himself is our dwelling place, an “oasis of refreshment and encampment” (Van Gemeren, Psalms, 2008, 690). This would certainly have been important for a people on the move for forty years, and even before during the days of the nomadic patriarchs and their Egyptian captivity. For all the change we experience, whether welcomed or not, God is the one, fixed reference point provides a sense of security that is all too elusive to us.

Moses quickly moves to lament, which occupies the largest section of the psalm. In doing so he confronts us with the brevity of our own lives, conceived of as seventy or eighty years, and perhaps even less. The apostle Peter likens our life to a flower blossom (1 Peter 1:24); James to a breath on a cold morning (James 4:14); Paul to a tent (2 Corinthians 5:4). But our transitoriness is not our real problem. Our sinfulness is. As a result we live our lives under the wrath of God and threat of final judgment. Moses confesses, “For we have been consumed by Your anger and by Your wrath we have been terrified” (Psalm 90:7). How many died in the wilderness as a result of the failure at Kadesh-Barnea? Thousands and thousands, and Moses was a witness to each of them. These are frightening thoughts to every generation: death, judgment, wrath, and we work hard to suppress the thought of each; it is too painful to carry. But coming to grips with this reality is the beginning of our cure.

Finally, Moses concludes the psalm with prayer. It is a petition that God would reverse our current situation and restore us to his previous beneficence. Of course, God is always present with and faithful to his people: there is never a time he is not. But we do live under the effects of Adam’s and our own choices which at times renders our lives almost unbearable. So, Moses prays that Yahweh would restore his favor to his people, that he would restore the joy of our salvation, and that he would continuously pour out his love for us.

God continues to speak to us by way of Psalm 90. While the writer is human, its author is divine. The psalm reflects, in seventeen verses, exactly what we need to know and be convinced of in order to orientate our lives to the reality of which we are a part.