In the opening verse of Jude, the author identified himself as, “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James“. We know this Jude is not one of the apostles from verse 17 where he wrote, “But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ“. This Jude affirmed himself to be the brother of James. This brother of Jude cannot be the apostle we know as James because his only brother was the apostle John, both of whom were identified in scripture as the sons of Zebedee and also as the “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). There is never a reference either in scripture or non-biblical historical writings of any son of Zebedee named Jude or Judas.
There was another James mentioned in scripture who was not an apostle who did have a brother named Judas. In Matthew 13:55 we see a listing of the brothers of Jesus Christ, “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?” The name “Judas” is identical to the name “Jude” as used in the title of this epistle.
James, the Lord’s brother was not an apostle, in fact he was not even a believer in Jesus as the Messiah at first as indicated in John 7:5 “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.” James, the brother of Jude later grew to be a prominent figure within the 1st century church as evidenced in Galatians 2:9-12 and Acts 15:13. James, the brother of John had been slain by Herod prior to these events as recorded in Acts 12:2 so we know the James spoken of with such prominence in Acts 15 and Galatians was James the brother of Jesus. Having grown in the faith to such distinction, the readers of Jude’s letter, who knew the Apostle James had been executed would associate this letter with James the brother of Jesus upon hearing the connection. Jude effectively identified himself to his readers when he wrote that he was the brother of James.
So being a brother to James who was the brother of Jesus, we know that the Jude who wrote the epistle which bears his name was in fact one of the brothers of Jesus, the sons of Mary and Joseph. There is a lot of speculation among the historians and commentators as to why Jude chose not to identify himself as the brother of Jesus.
It is important to keep in mind that the brothers of Jesus were not at first believers in Him as the Christ. Upon one occasion when Jesus was teaching to the multitudes, his family had come seeking to speak with him. This account is found in Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21. Upon hearing that His family sought to speak with Him, Jesus made replied, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He [Jesus], stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:48-50). Jude and James were both aware that servants of Jesus Christ held a higher place of distinction with Him than his own biological family. Thus by identifying himself as a servant of Christ, Jude appealed more to that noble distinction than he did to his own kinship with Jesus. In his mind, it was preferable to be recognized as a servant of Jesus than it was as His fleshly brother. By doing this, he effectively showed humility and piety in that scripture plainly teaches that no Christian is to ever elevate himself in stature to be more than his brethren. To have claimed kinship with Jesus would have served no purpose other than to set himself up as somebody of importance when there is no greater station in life than that of a bond-servant of Jesus Christ.
Another reason not to identify oneself as the brother of Jesus was the danger to oneself and to their readership in the perilous times which surrounded the 1st century church. It was dangerous in the 1st century to be a Christian. And to identify oneself as a brother of Jesus Christ would not only put the author in great danger, but also those who might be found with a copy of a letter written by him. There is an account in the writings of Eusebius that detail two grandsons of Jude who were taken before emperor Domitian on suspicion of an insurrection by the Jews. Being of the lineage of king David, it was feared that Jude’s grandsons could be the leaders of just such a rebellion against the empire. It was not conducive to a long life in the paganistic 1st century Roman Empire to be identified as a blood relative to Jesus Christ.
James the apostle being formerly slain by Herod, left James, the brother of Jesus who had grown to be such a prominent figure in the church that no further introduction other than “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” was necessary. James, the brother of Jesus was reputed among the Christians of the first century as a “pillar” in the church (Galatians 2:9). Jude’s readership knew exactly who he was without any further identification.
This leaves us with two books of our New Testament written by half brothers of our Lord. This is even more significant given the fact that none of our Lord’s brothers believed in Him at first. These men knew intimate details of the life of Jesus that nobody else could know. If Jesus were some kind of imposter, there is no way he could have fooled someone he grew up with. Jesus was said to be completely without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 9:28, 1 John 3:5). If at any time during the childhoods of the children of Joseph and Mary that Jesus would have in any way sinned, there is no way His siblings would have known this. One cannot spend that much time in the company of someone else and not have their character scrutinized to the degree that it must have been and come out of it sinless in reputation unless they were indeed sinless. The fact that any of Jesus’ brothers converted to Christianity is compelling evidence in favor of the authenticity of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and we have in our possession two epistles written by them.
While we are on the subject of the brothers of Jesus Christ, we should give attention to the doctrine of the ‘Perpetual virginity of Mary’. This doctrine is part of the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, and Anglo-Catholics as expressed in their liturgies, in which they repeatedly refer to Mary as ‘ever virgin’.According to this teaching, Jesus was the only biological son of Mary.
This doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is one element in the well-established theology known as Mariology. The virginity of Mary at the time of her conception of Jesus is a key topic in Roman Catholic Marian art, usually represented as the annunciation to Mary by the Archangel Gabriel that she would virginally conceive a child to be born the Son of God. Frescos depicting this scene have appeared in Roman Catholic Marian churches for centuries.Mary’s virginity even after her conception of Jesus is regularly represented in the art of both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox as well as in early Western religious art.
Four New Testament passages contradict the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Matthew 1:24-25 says of Joseph and Mary “… When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son…” Matthew 13:55–56 says of Jesus “… aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?“, demonstrating by inspiration that Jesus had siblings. Mark 3:31-35 records an event that occurred while Jesus was preaching: “… And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.’” While affirming the right of disciples to be supported by the church if necessary, Paul affirmed that Jesus had brothers in 1 Corinthians 9:5-6, when he wrote, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?“
Based on the teachings of the inspired record and historical evidence, we reject the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary and we recognize Jude, the brother of James as being one of four brothers of our Lord and savior, all children of Mary and her husband, Joseph.
Being a son of Joseph, we can draw some conclusions about the kind of person Jude was. Joseph was a carpenter and we learn from Mark 6:3 that Jesus was referred to by those who knew Him as a carpenter as well. From this we can assume that all of the sons of Joseph would have been trained in this craft as part of their upbringing. No doubt they were all required to work with their father in his craft as they grew up. Joseph was described in scripture as a “just” man when his espoused wife was found to be with child and he chose not to make a public spectacle of her. Being called a “just” man meant that he was a pious man who lived in accordance with the law of Moses. Having been instructed by an angel that Mary had not been unfaithful to him, he made the decision to allow Mary to remain a virgin until after Jesus was born. Joseph was obviously a man of God and coupled with the fact that two of his natural sons grew up to be inspired writers of scripture, we can reasonably infer that the whole house of Joseph lived and worshipped as faithful children of God. Jude would have been as well versed in the writings of the old testament as anyone in the family. Jesus certainly demonstrated His familiarity with the old testament writings on the occasion when he talked with the doctors of the law in the temple. It is obvious that this family, though poor carpenters of the working class, were required by the head of the household to be familiar with scripture and the law of Moses. Jude had good parents and grew up to be a well known enough member of the Lord’s church that an epistle written by his hand is included in the inspired record.
Being of the working class, Jude probably never received any formal training such as a doctor of the law would have. Jude was simple of speech and phrased his thoughts in direct and frank terms, easy to understand and to the point. He demonstrates his love for his Christian brethren in his epistle when he refers to them as “beloved” three times in his epistle (3; 17; 20). And on the opposite side, he clearly communicates his disdain for ungodly men and pronounces the condemnation of God upon them in the harshest of terms possible for a man of God. There is no room for speculation as to the feelings of Jude towards those who would lead his “beloved” brethren away from Christ and down the road to destruction.
There is no shortage of disagreement over the date of Jude. The best evidence we have puts the date of authorship in the latter half of the first century. Looking at Jude 17-19, we see that the writer appeals to the words spoken by the apostles in a way that looks back on them as to a former age. In Jude 3 we see, concerning the faith, as being “once delivered” demonstrating that at the time of this writing, “the faith” had been completely delivered and recorded. Jude points to prophecies regarding heretics by the apostles and affirms that these predictions have indeed been fulfilled. The entire book takes on a general feeling of looking back to a former time, therefore it is entirely possible that this book could be one of the latest written works we have. It is entirely possible, given the evidence at hand that this book could have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
While no conclusive evidence exists as to the exact date, it is of little importance in the grand scheme of things. Whenever the book was written, it has an application to any who would pervert the doctrine of Christ. Given the current state of religion today with all the division and denominationalism, Jude may very well be one of the most relevant books we have today. One cannot conduct a through and honest study of this epistle without taking a critical look at the myriad array of denominations among those professing Christ as savior and come away from such a study without any misgivings towards division in the body of Christ. Let those who would pervert the gospel of Christ and teach the doctrines and commandments of men instead, beware. Jude’s condemnation for such behavior leaves no room for speculation as to the fate facing those who would depart from the truth and teach doctrine in opposition to that which was once for all time delivered.
The intended audience of this epistle according to Jude 1 is to all Christians. Jude did not target a specific group in his introduction such as Jews or any one congregation or individual. It was a common practice for the epistles to be copied and distributed among all the churches. Such would have been the case here and obviously was in view of the fact that it was preserved and included in the inspired record of scripture we have today. The purpose for this epistle is very simple. It is stated early in the letter with urgency that there were those who having apostatized from the faith, were leading others down the road to destruction with them. Jude is a letter of warning, with application to all Christians of all ages, against apostasy and following after its destructive effects.
Any study of Jude should include a parallel study of 2 Peter 2. Peter prophecies of a group of apostates who will come in secretly and lure many away from the truth and who will suffer eternal condemnation. Jude identifies a group of apostates who did that very thing and used many of the same examples that Peter did in illustrating these people and the characteristics which would help in identifying them. One cannot help but be impressed by the similarity and draw a conclusion that Jude was identifying and condemning those who Peter forewarned his readership of.
There are a number of false doctrines in existence today. When one looks out over the array of denominations, many having their own so called interpretation of the truth, it is hard to accept the notion that they can all be correct. Anybody with any kind of serious approach whatsoever to their soul’s eternal wellbeing must at some point in their life behold all the religious diversity and reflect on the state of their own soul. There are various slants on Biblical truth, but one the most prevalent which helps gives rise to all the rest is the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. When one believes one is saved by faith alone, then the necessity of attention to correctness in other matters is of secondary importance. Advocates of this doctrine, believing that salvation is obtained by faith alone, feel the freedom to exercise their own wants and wishes into their religious service. Such supposed freedom has opened the door to all kinds of religious diversity. Those claiming Christ feel they can window shop for a “church” that suits their personal taste with no ill consequences because they feel their salvation is secure in their faith alone.
The book of James, in particular chapter 2, presents some serious hurdles for this doctrine. One cannot accept James chapter 2 at face value and hold in any way to the doctrine of Salvation by faith alone. This doctrine is here mentioned because Jude is all about those who would apostatize from God’s truth and James was one book written to combat the beliefs of a group of apostate Christians who, wrongly believing that one is saved by the merits of God’s grace alone, had crept into the church bringing this unholy doctrine with them. They used this perversion to justify all kinds of illicit sexual behavior and to even promote it.
Another doctrine which has arisen through the centuries is the doctrine of ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’. This doctrine teaches that once one is saved, there is nothing they can do which will cause them to so sin so as to lose their salvation. Proponents of this doctrine have some serious hurdles to overcome with the book of Jude which is all about apostatizing Christians. Jude contains words of condemnation for those who do pervert the truth of God’s word and likewise for those who would follow their unholy teachings. If the possibility of apostasy did not exist, then Jude, as well as 2 Peter chapter 2, would be an altogether unnecessary inclusion in God’s word. Like James chapter 2, there is no way one could take the book of Jude at face value and continue to believe in the specific doctrine it is intended to condemn.
