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”
