Jude and 2 Peter. Andrew M. Mbuvi

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.