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.