39. Earnest Contention (Jude 3)
When Jude wrote his warning to the saints of the first
century, he certainly had reason to be alarmed. There seems to have been a
tremendously dangerous problem at large; those who were disrupting the ecclesias
were not even described as brethren — they were “certain men....
ungodly men” (v. 4). Jude’s other terms for them are even
worse: lascivious, brute beasts, greedy, lustful, mockers, sensual. It is hard
to imagine sins heinous enough among the brethren of today ever to justify such
terms.
Even though Jude says that these men “deny the only Lord
God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 4), it is most unlikely that they would
deny association with Christ altogether. More likely they were such as those
against whom John warned in his second epistle: teachers who so confounded the
nature and the work of the Savior that in their minds the gospel message was
hopelessly distorted.
In judging from the catalogue of vices of these men, and
considering those with whom they were compared, it would appear that they were
of the “libertine” school. To such men nothing done in the flesh was
truly sin, for they possessed a superior knowledge. It was the old lie of the
serpent: that there is nothing wrong in “experiencing” all aspects
of life — the evil with the good. “Let us continue in sin, that
grace may abound.”
“The question must be asked: were these monstrously dangerous false
brethren in fellowship with those to whom Jude wrote? From verse 12 it would
seem they were: ‘these are a blot on your love feasts, where they eat and
drink without reverence’ (NEB). On the other hand in verse 19 Jude says of
them; ‘it is they who set up divisions.’ Presumably if they were in
the ecclesia it was only in order to draw it away from the faithful brotherhood
into an orbit of their own in which they would be ‘wandering stars’
“ (A. Eyre, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century
Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, No. 1283 — May 1971
— pp. 210,211).
In such a distressing situation it is certainly understandable
that Jude would rise to sound an alarm. If ever there were a time to protect the
flock from the wolves, it was then.
“It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort
you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto
the saints” (v. 3).
However, considering the enormity of the errors rampant
(worse, it must be admitted, than anything that has troubled the brotherhood in
modern times), Jude shows a remarkable restraint in his instructions as to the
type of contention to be waged. First, he emphasizes the positive actions that
should counteract the evil influences:
“Build up yourselves in your most holy faith, praying
in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God....” (vv.
20,21).
And secondly, he implies that God will judge these
sinners in due time — all of his examples and comparisons tending toward
this view. It was God Himself who singled out the generation of Israel to
die in the wilderness (v. 5); it was God who sent forth the fire and
earthquake against Korah and his followers (v. 11). Even Michael, an archangel,
does not bring a railing accusation against his adversary (whoever that might be
is irrelevant to this discussion), but merely promises that God will
rebuke him (v. 9). These evil men against whom Jude warns were present at the
“love feasts” (v. 12) — the Breaking of Bread! — yet
Jude writes not a word commanding their exclusion!
Despite the seriousness of the sins, Jude does not command a
blanket disfellowship of the false teachers, much less of their deluded
followers. His view is the same as that of Brother Thomas, who, in writing of
the same period, stated his belief that the “Antipas” class could
“contend earnestly for the faith” quite effectively and Scripturally
even while continuing as members of very imperfect ecclesias (Eureka,
Vol. 1, p. 335).
As with some of the other passages we have just been
considering, Jude 3 is made by some to carry a very heavy weight. Much more is
inferred from it than the context will bear. True, there are times when brethren
must “contend for the faith”, but must that “contention”
involve the excommunication of guilty, possibly guilty, and uninformed
“tolerators” alike? And how much of all the “contention”
which seeks its justification from Jude 3 is contention for one’s own
views and opinions and importance rather than contention for the
faith?
“It is easy for men to deceive themselves into thinking that unrighteous
and unjust extremes are simply the evidence of their zeal for truth. Even a
readiness to listen to the accused is regarded as weakness. Such extremists cry
shame on the very effort to be fair, and in their determination to have no
compromise with error they sometimes exaggerate faults, and so grossly
misrepresent the objects of their attack that they become guilty of offences
worse than all the error against which they are trying to fight.
“We must not fall into the mistake of taking an extreme view even of the
extremist. God has been merciful to such men in the past, and we must be
merciful now even in our thoughts. We may state most emphatically, however, that
it is wrong to exaggerate the faults of anyone or to find ugly and misleading
names with which to label those who do not quite see eye to eye with us. It is
quite possible to be valiant for the Truth and zealous for the Lord without
being unfair even to those who are mistaken, and it is always wrong to be
unfair. In faithfulness we must point out the danger that in great zeal for the
jots and tittles of the law men may lose sight of the foundation principles. All
their faith and works may become valueless through lack of charity” (I.
Collyer, “The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, The
Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 722 — Aug. 1924 — p.
344).
It is not necessarily true, then, that all contention is
proper or profitable. Jude has more to say of contention than simply in v. 3. It
is possible, he says, that men, in thinking they do God service, may
“speak evil of those things they know not” (v. 10), and in their
accusations and antagonisms become as “raging waves of the sea, foaming
out their own shame” (v. 13). “Indeed there is a spirit which
strives against impurity which is itself impure; furthermore where the spirit is
right but the method is wrong there may be a generation of heat without
light” (C. Tennant, “The Epistle of Jude”, The
Christadelphian, Vol. 104, No. 1239 — Sept. 1967 — p. 404).
James adds his voice to the same effect:
“Whence come wars and fightings —
contentions! — among you?”
Because you are zealous to contend for the truth? Not
always!
“Come they not hence, even of your lusts that
war in your members?” (4:1)
We must always remember that the greatest abhorrence of sin is
not necessarily found in the one who is most condemning of the sinner, and that
in contention for truth the loudest and most self-confident voice is not always
the best. The example of Christ should serve us well when we are faced with
ecclesial problems. From him we learn that patience and tact and love and prayer
are our most effective tools. We do possess a “sword”, and we may
finally have to use it. But let us not rush headlong into every controversy with
it drawn. Like the surgeon’s scalpel, it must be the last resort, after
all other possible healing attempts have conclusively failed.