Hey, Jude

23 April 2007

Album art of The Beatles’ Hey JudeHey, Jude, don’t be afraid
You were made to go out and get her
The minute you let her under your skin
Then you begin to make it better.

Ahhh…probably my favorite Beatles song, and actually one of my favorite of all the New Testament texts. In the comments to a post some time ago, a loyal reader and visitor to the Aedificium (alas, may peace be upon his blog) noted to me his appreciation for interpretive posts here that “get below the surface and to a deeper place.” And so, in the spirit of Lennon and McCartney, I thought I would toss up some thoughts here that try to get under the skin of one of the least known texts in the entire Christian canon to begin to make better an appreciation of it. Which is really just a way of saying “here are some of my notes and thoughts from Sunday morning’s Bible study that I was conscripted into leading at the last possible minute.”

(N.B.: If you’ve arrived at this blog looking for the sensational live concert video of the Beatles’ “Hey Jude,” welcome. I won’t keep you from your true objective! You’ll find the Youtube video of the performance at the bottom of this post.)

One question I am regularly asked is “How come some books are in the Bible when nobody even knows what they say, let alone actually sit and read them? How come hardly anyone ever preaches from Leviticus or Obadiah or Jude?” Indeed! While I have occasionally heard a sermon or two from Leviticus, I can’t say that I have ever, in any church or denomination I have ever been in, heard one from Jude. I have never even been part of a Bible study or Sunday School class that focused on Jude. Even in college and university textbook surveys of the Bible or the New Testament, Jude is usually lumped in with the Peter letters at best and sometimes just in the “general letters” category. So, when on Friday evening at a social function a member of our Sunday morning study group wanted to do a few short studies for the last several weeks of the Sunday “Academic Year,” I suggested that we focus on some short prophetic books or NT Letters that no one ever reads that we could maybe bang out in a week or two for each book. Enter Jude.

Hey, Jude! Don’t let her down
You have found her, now go and get her
Remember, to let her into your heart
Then you can start to make it better.

Yeah, baby. So anyway, two questions: Why is it Scripture if no one reads it or, if people do read it, uses it? and Why don’t people read it or use it? It’s certainly short enough; Philemon gets read and preached from and studies, so how come poor Jude gets the short end of the stick?

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that at one point in time, Jude enjoyed enough currency among its 2nd Temple Jewish-Christian recipients that the letter circulated among other Jewish-Christian congregations in the eastern Mediterranean. But as these congregations were gradually “replaced” by Byzantine and/or Roman and/or Alexandrian and/or more “eastern” versions of Christianity (like Manichaean or Syriac or Mandaean) the book’s extensive imagery from the 2nd Temple Jewish period was simply not understood anymore. Despite having been admitted to the canon of Christian Scripture in the Eastern and Western churches, once the terrific images of Jude were no longer understood, the book was effectively lost. But, as Lennon and McCartney note, I think we can find Jude again and we can go and get it, and let it into our hearts.

So what’s going on here? The book, as I see it, depends on a thorough realization that it is very much a Jewish text with fairly minimal gentile Christian overlay. It won’t do to try to shoehorn standard Christian interpretations of all the explicitly Jewish imagery; 1500 years of trying to do exactly this has turned the book into a “sad song” waiting to be made better again. In fact, some of the earliest manuscript traditions even bear witness to attempts to make it more conforming to what would eventually become orthodox Christology by changing the word for Lord in vs. 5 to Jesus himself, effectively making it absolutely clear, at least to those who followed these variants, that Jesus himself led Israel out of Egypt, not Yhwh elohim. Be that as it may, the appeal to the Exodus as God’s/Jesus’ act of salvation for the people “Israel” (a contested identity by the second century, and perhaps reflected here in Jude) out of bondage in Egypt is not the only, or even the primary, Jewish allusion in the book. Ergo, a “cheat sheet” of how a 2nd Temple Jewish-Christian community might have received this letter.

  • The image of “Cain.” Christians have long interpreted Cain as the archetype for murder and violence, and academics have added their two cents to this interpretation by pointing out that murder and violence in urban, domesticated settings is represented by Cain in Genesis 4. But, Jewish interpreters of Cain in the 2nd Temple period, such as Philo and Josephus (as well as the Rabbis in the classical rabbinic period), understood Cain less as an archetypal murderer and symbol for urban violence (though he was that) and more as the quintessential example of defiance to God’s authority, disobedience, and envy. Although this particular understanding of the Cainite semiotic gave way to the Christian one fairly early on, the author of Jude could no doubt have counted on his Jewish recipients to know what he meant.
  • Jude is mostly concerned about infiltrators to his community of Christians that have dared to “deny the Master,” as he puts it in verse 4. It so happens that in Jewish tradition, denial of the authority of God or his representatives is one of the gravest sins that a community or an individual can participate in. Jude uses a bunch of the most common Jewish examples of this, taken from the Old Testament and from more legendary embellishments of the canonical stories: 1) The “angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling” - v. 6. Has nothing to do with the fall of Satan. (Sorry, John Milton.) But it does have to do with the legend of the sons of God leaving their heavenly abode to fool around with the daughters of men, whom they apparently found more attractive and interesting than heavenly counterparts, in Genesis 6. This story has had a very long shelf life in the legends and tales of the Jewish people, and part of this cycle is preserved in the book of 1 Enoch, which was apparently dear to Jude’s heart. Result of this denial of God’s appointed place for these Jewish Titans: chained up in the deepest darkness for eventual judgment on “the day.” 2) Jude appeals to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Christian interpretation has long understood this verse to be talking about any number of sexual sins. But this is, again, only incidental to the story, according to Jewish interpreters of the age. Instead, the bigger problem is that the men of Sodom have insulted God’s honor by lusting after other flesh, specifically that of God’s angels. Result of this offense? Well, you know the story. And so did Jude’s addressees. 3) Michael’s disputation with the devil, in vs. 8, refers to an old Jewish apocryphal story about how the devil slanders Moses as a murderer and tells off God, via Michael, for even suggesting that Moses should be given a proper burial. Michael, though, refuses to treat with the devil and tells him to get lost. The point here is that not even an archangel will dare to take God’s place as judge; I think Jude is warning his community not to usurp the role of God even with the intruders they are dealing with, lest they incur God’s wrath like Korah did, like Cain did, and like Balaam did.
  • The stories of Korah and Balaam are, of course, in the Bible. Korah meets an untimely end for trying to upstage Moses and Aaron and claim God’s authority for himself, and ends up being eaten by the earth itself. Balaam is executed by Israel for attempting to induce Israel to idolatry, which is traditionally understood in Jewish metaphor in terms of sexual sins and infidelity to the Lord. Again, Jude is telling his audience not to treat with those who have infiltrated their community; they will meet their end soon enough.
  • The quotation from 1 Enoch in vs. 14-15. Here we have a fascinating situation where a non-canonical book is quoted in a canonical book, thus becoming scripture to future readers. The verse in Jude, quoted from 1 Enoch 1.9, reinforces Jude’s point with an apparently scriptural proof-text that God will come with his holy ones to judge and convict the folks who are getting under the skin of Jude and Jude’s community as “grumblers and malcontents” who indulge in “their own lusts” (whatever they are) and who are “bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage” (Jude 16).

So the bulk of the letter, as well as its entire rhetorical argument from vv. 5-16, is absolutely dependent on its audience knowing not only the particular stories from Hebrew scripture but also how these stories were used and interpreted by 2nd Temple Jewish communities who have adopted Jesus as their expected Messiah. The end of the letter reflects more-or-less standard Messianic expectations of the 2nd Temple Period, which is a bit surprising considering the community’s recognition of Jesus as Messiah. But it is entirely consistent with the expectation of the Messiah’s return in the Gospels, in Paul, and in the Book of Revelation. Jude adopts the eschatology of the apocalyptic literature of the Jewish tradition and reinscribes it with the expectation of the return of Jesus during the “end” or “last time.” He interprets the presence of the intruders of v. 4 as proof of the inevitable fulfillment of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ who predicted that these folks would show up during the “last time.” But instead of usurping God’s prerogative to judge these “scoffers” and “worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions” (v. 19), which Jude had just spent some 10 verses warning against, he admonishes his community to simply hold each other up in prayer and in the love of God and to “have mercy on those who are wavering” and save whomever they can.

So what is the deal here? Can we read this today with profit? Of course we can. The issues Jude faced then are issues we face now, whether we try to force a gentile Christian interpretation on the letter or whether we let its authentic Jewish-Christian voice speak to us. I’m particularly smitten with the description of those in Jude’s community who are “grumblers and malcontents” and “bombastic in speech” who “flatter people for their own advantage.” I don’t care what church you’re involved in. This could have been written Sunday after the service, and it certainly could be written of so many religious figures who promote malcontent and who are bombastic in speech in their pontificating about the moral state of the world, the failures of the family and loss of “family values” and the necessity of preemptive war or the foolishness of global warming and environmental crises. Even for those of us who reject the bombastic foolishness of the rhetoric of these folks, Jude warns us not to take matters of judgment in our own hands. In an age where the very earth threatens to swallow us up today, as it did to Korah, this seems like eminently sensible advice.

Hey, Jude, don’t make it bad
Take a sad song and make it better
Remember to let her into your heart
Then you can start to make it better

If you’ve slogged through this entire post, reward yourself by clicking on the fabulous performance below.

 

Entry Filed under: Bible, Christianity, Church, Community, Judaism, Lectio, Religion, Rumination, Scriptures. .

9 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ken  |  24 April 2007 at 9:38 am

    I think that most Christians today place morality and justice above grace in their own lives, in their relationships with other people, and in their understanding of God. The Book of Jude seems to reinforce that emphasis. The most self-righteous people I know pray for the people they don’t like - it seems to be a sign of their sense of their own moral superiority to the people they don’t like, not a sign of grace.

    I don’t admire Jude. But I do enjoy reading about the goings on in the lives of angels :-)

  • 2. Benedict  |  24 April 2007 at 1:40 pm

    To an extent I agree, and those relatively few Christians throughout the years who have actually read and tried to deal with Jude have probably come to play the morality card. But I don’t see that as the only, or even the primary way of reading the letter. I see Jude saying that some of “not us” is in the process of joining “us,” which is going to happen to any community, and he’s playing the authority card in the letter. Every church is going to have its scoffers and bombastic rhetors. Jude is advocating his community to stay faithful and to be very careful about judging the newcomers, lest God wipe us out. He’s trying to walk a line between maintaining communal identity and judging those who don’t fit into whatever boundaries have been / are being established.

    Having said that, remember that Jude is no Pauline writer. He’s much more in the tradition of the Gospels, I think, where “grace” doesn’t really factor into the salvation of the people of God so much as do justice and ethics.

  • 3. Ken  |  24 April 2007 at 3:00 pm

    I think I should have used the word mercy rather than grace in that last posting. I suppose in my mind mercy and grace are the same, but I did not think about the protestant emphasis on salvation by grace and how that could influence the meaning of what I wrote. I mean to use the word mercy as in the description of God in Exodus and Deuteronomy - merciful and full of loving kindness, forgiving to the thousandth generation. Throughout the Bible I hear an emphasis on mercy more than on justice. I think the Biblical emphasis on mercy challenges the western notion of ethics and justice. I think the Biblical emphasis on mercy is more compatible with (but not identical with) Carol Gilligan’s ethic of care than with an ethic of justice. At the same time I am skeptical of ethics in general as a way of interpreting the Bible. I am persuaded by Nietzsche and Foucault that ethical statements, including statements about justice, are ultimately assertions of power - assertions that Foucault urges us to resist.

    I think of the gospels as proclaiming the imminent coming of the kingdom of God - a cosmic event in the way that Schweitzer described, for example. I don’t think of the gospels as involving an ethic in the ways we use that word today (e.g., fairness.)

    One of the things I find the hardest about ministry or theology is relating these ancient writings to our lives in any direct way. I suppose that I read the Bible something like Hans Frei did. But I think I am more affected by postmodernism than he was, and that keeps me from living in the Biblical narrative as much as I wish I could.

    I wish I could see the land of the angels.

  • 4. Benedict  |  24 April 2007 at 4:17 pm

    I agree with you on the biblical injunction to mercy, but I would actually suggest that biblical “justice,” specifically prophetic justice, is mercy in the biblical idiom. Certainly the ethics and justice of the Bible challenges how western religion, culture, and social politics have constructed modern ethics and justice. The former strike me as boiling down to stewardship (Gilligan’s “care” ;) and the latter as “moral fairness” and protection of “rights”. I’m generalizing here, but that’s my read of it, at least at the moment. I’m sure in ten years I’ll be running another track. I suspect that we’re not that far apart here.

    I also am fairly persuaded by Nietzsche and Foucault’s ideas on the discursive nature of justice and ethics, but I am also fairly persuaded by Derrida’s ideas of Justice and the messianic “venir” which is largely a-historical. In other words, I’m faced with the challenge of reconciling Derrida’s messianic ethics of an undeconstructible justice, which I find to be a powerful expression of the universality of biblical, prophetic mercy/justice, with Foucault’s recognition of the historical specificity and discursive nature of ethics and justice. The tension between to the two is dynamic and for me something close to an obsession. :-)

    Your last paragraph intrigues me, because it is exactly this more “postmodern” sensibility that has opened up the possibility of living this narrative and internalizing its memories for me in ways that had never been possible before.

  • 5. Ken  |  24 April 2007 at 11:04 pm

    I have not read about Derrida’s “venir.” I will see what I can find.

    Like you I do think that postmodernism has facilitated my faith in a way. I think it has weakened the power of my doubts. I guess my impression was that Frei could sustain a belief in the truth of narrative longer than I can.

    I have never met another Christian that has had the same reaction to postmodernism - so many people seem to dislike it. Maybe our reactions to it have something to do with hiking :-) If we could just find a few more like us maybe we could start a tribe.

    Ken

  • 6. Benedict  |  24 April 2007 at 11:10 pm

    Well, happily there are a LOT of us. If you’re up for it sometime, check out the work and writings of some of the pioneering folks involved with the Emergent Church movement. Brian McLaren is an especially good place to start from the perspective of faith and church; Lesslie Newbigin, although not at all “emergent,” is nonetheless influential, as was Stanley Grenz before his untimely death. For more philosophical heavy hitters, anything by one of my teachers, John (Jack) Caputo is especially good. Pete Rollins is a new writer and has written a great book called How (not) to speak of God, which I heartily recommend. The movement seeks to converse about what it means to be a Christian, indeed, religious at all, in a postmodern age. I don’t agree with everything, but if I did, I wouldn’t be very postmodern, now, would I? :-)

    I can’t wait to hit the White Mountains in a few weeks.

  • 7. Ken  |  25 April 2007 at 8:44 am

    Thanks, I will look for their writings. I remember reading something about postmodernism by Stanley Grenz, but did not know he died. I have heard of Brian McLaren and read a little about the emergent church movement, but have not read his work or any of the others you have named. I am so glad to hear we have a tribe.

  • 8. Ken  |  26 April 2007 at 10:46 am

    I have looked a little at the authors you recommended and will spend more time with them. My impression from that quick look and from my past readings about the emergent church is that the emergent church is a contemporary expression of evangelicalism for people who no longer feel comfortable with the evangelicalism of their parents but that don’t feel comfortable just abandoning it altogether. I don’t feel an attraction to the emergent church. Maybe it is because I come from an existentialist and liberal protestant background rather than from an evangelical background. I don’t know.

    My impression is that the emergent church does not realize or actualize the depth of the nihilism we face. I think the emergent church is like the church the madman entered in the Nietzsche’s parable. I imagine those folks talked about what the madman said, made some adjustments for the postmodern sensibility, and went back to worship and mission. But the madman will come again.

  • 9. Marc  |  29 March 2008 at 9:21 am

    Jude is Julian Lennon; this song has no bearing on religion at all. It’s Paul’s attempt to comfort Julian during John’s split from Julian’s mom.

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Quote of the moment

My essays come from a desire to understand what I love and what I hope for and to defend those things. -- Wendell Berry

Calendar

April 2007
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Recent Comments

Peter on Bonhoeffer and the Weakness of…
Peter on Bonhoeffer and the Weakness of…
On Things Political … on Politics and Biblical Fai…
TheDeeZone on Politics and Biblical Fai…
Benedict on Politics and Biblical Fai…
sioeengland on Politics and Biblical Fai…
michelle2005 on Politics and Biblical Fai…
Benedict on Politics and Biblical Fai…
Can you be a Christi… on And the 2008 Just Shut Up! Awa…
michelle2005 on Politics and Biblical Fai…

Top Posts

Topics of Discourse

Absurdity Always we begin again Apocalypticism Beauty Bible Body Books Christianity Church Community Consumerism Crisis management Economy Education Election Empire Environment Eschatology Ethics Evangelicalism Faith Family Food Fundamentalism Fun stuff Holidays Homeschooling Inspiration Interfaith Islam Judaism Lectio Lent Liberalism Life Media Memory Ministry Mumblings... Mysticism Nature Poetry Politics Pop culture Power Reading Religion Revelation Rumination Science Scriptures Sermons Sexuality Spirituality Sports Stewardship Theology Wendell Berry Worldview Worship

Links

Who's Reading?

Vanity counter

Email me