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
