Jude: The truth war (4)--'Constrained Into Conflict: Why We Must Fight For The Faith'

Jude: The truth war (4) Point: Constrained Into Conflict: Why We Must Fight For The Faith Jude 3-Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.   Since the catalyst for this writing is Jude's challenge to people under his pastoral care, I want you to meet him. Jude was the younger half brother of Christ. How do we know that? Well, first of all, Scripture says that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary had at least four other sons. (Mark 6:3 indicates that they had daughters too--although the girl's names are not given and we don't even know how many there were.) The household in which Jesus grew up seems to have been fairly large family by today's standards. In Matthew 13:55, Jesus' four half brothers are expressly mentioned by name.   In that context, Matthew is describing how people in Jesus' hometown of Nazareth responded to his authoritative teaching by questioning His credentials. They expressed disbelief and amazement that a teacher like Jesus could come from the family of a lowly carpenter in their own unremarkable village. In the process, they mentioned Jesus' parents and His siblings. As Matthew records the names of the four younger sons in the family, notice the last person on the list: "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?"   "Judas" is a simple transliteration of Jude's Greek name. In the original biblical manuscripts, it is exactly the same name used to signify Judas Iscariot. But to distinguish Jesus' brother from the traitor, the author of the epistle is always known in English as Jude. Incidentally, the only place in the English Bible where Jude's name actually appears in that familiar shortened form is the first word of the first verse of his short epistle. Even there, the name given in the Greek manuscripts is Ioudas.   Judas (meaning "praise YHWH") is an Anglicized Greek variant of Judah, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. This was quite a common name in first-century Israel. The New Testament introduces us to at least different men named Judas, including two of the original twelve disciples.   There was, of course, the notorious false disciple named Iscariot. But there was also a faithful member of the Twelve named Judas. John 14:22 has parentheses with the note "not Iscariot" following his name. Acts 1:13 refers to that lesser-known disciple named Judas as "Judas the son of James." He is normally called Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus rather than Judas (Matthew 10:3). That disciple is not the author of the epistle. (Although such a connection has sometimes erroneously been made, we shall shortly see why it is a mistake.)   Other Judases in the New Testament include an insurgent named Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37); Judas Barsabas, a church leader who delivered news about the Jerusalem Council's ruling to believers in Antioch (Acts 15:22); and a man named Judas who lived in Damascus on Straight Street, in whose home the apostle Paul stayed immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:11).   Our Jude stands out from all the others. A considerable amount of biblical evidence suggests that the "Judas" named as a younger son of Joseph and Mary in Matthew 13:55 is none other than the human author of the epistle--Jude. Although Jude himself gives scant details about his identity, what few facts he reveals correlate perfectly with what we know of the younger half brother of Christ.   -Bondservant Of Christ, Brother Of James As a matter of fact, the best clues we have about Jude's true identity come from the epistle itself. What Jude doesn't say about himself is almost as interesting as what he does say. Notice, first of all, what he does say. In the very opening words of the epistle, he describes himself as "Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (v.1).   Who is this "James"? As we have seen, James is the lead name of both of the biblical lists of Joseph and Mary's natural sons. The apostle Paul (in Galatians 1:19) likewise mentions "James, the Lord's brother" as a key leader in the early Jerusalem church. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul includes a general reference to "the brothers of the Lord" without naming any of them. There he speaks of them as distinct from the apostles, but he clearly accords them a similar importance in the work of the early church.   The James and Judas who were Jesus' half brothers are the only brothers with those names explicitly mentioned anywhere in Scripture. The father of the apostle Judas Lebbaeus Thaddaeus was a different man named James, and the similarity of the names has unfortunately caused many people--including some fine commentators--to confuse the apostle Thaddaeus with Jude, author of our epistle. But they are not the same.   By the way, the "James" mentioned in Jude 1 was no apostle, either. The only apostle named James (son of Salome and Zebedee, and brother of John the beloved apostle) was martyred very early by Herod, according to Acts 12:1-2. He was long dead by the time Jude wrote. So the best-known James in the church when Jude introduced himself this way is the one whom Paul calls "James, the Lord's brother"(Galatians 1:19). He is the same James who wrote the New Testament epistle bearing his name. He also appears as the main spokeman for the Jerusalem church in Acts 15:13.   Now notice what Jude doesn't say about himself. He nowhere claims the title of an apostle. That fact would be odd indeed if our author were truly one of the original Twelve. Moreover, Jude seems to remove all doubt about whether he was one of the apostles in verses 17-18, where he specifically distinguishes himself from the apostles, referring to them in the third person ("they told you").   Second, notice that Jude likewise does not explicitly identify himself as Jesus' younger brother. That might seem strange at first glance, but it is understandable given the complexities of such a relationship and the history of Jude's own journey to faith.   Remember that Jesus' own brothers did not originally believe in Him. Mark 6:1-6 describes the same events as Matthew 13:54-58. The people of Nazareth "were astonished, saying, 'Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?' So they were offended at Him" (vv.2-3).   This list in Mark 6:3 includes the very same names as Matthew 13:55, but Mark reverses the final two, putting Judas third and Simon last. James is first on both lists. The order suggests that James was the eldest of the four and "Judas" (as he is called in both lists) was one of the younger sons in the family of Joseph and Mary--perhaps the youngest of five boys (including Jesus, who of course was older than all His half brothers and sisters). Their ages in relationship to one another are never given, but Jude was at least four or five years behind his eldest brother. At this point in his life, he was apparently still living in his parents' home. Mark 6:3 seems to imply that the whole family was present when the village of Nazareth turned against Jesus, so Jude would have been an eyewitness to these events.   As a young man, Jude appears to have been confused by the fierce opposition to Jesus, and at first he himself was swept up in skepticism. John 7:5 says that during Jesus' earthly ministry, "even His brothers did not believe in Him." Later, of course, Jude did believe. But at first, he seems to have followed the crowd in their rejection of Jesus' authority.   So understanding Jude's true identity and his familial relationship to Christ gives us an interesting insight into the character of this man and what fueled his passion for defending the truth. His own experience--nearly being led astray by giving too much credence to popular opinion--certainly explains the intensity of his own zeal as a mature warrior for the truth.   A final reason for identifying Jude as Jesus' half brother is found in the sheer paucity of information Jude finds it necessary to give about himself. He and his family were apparently quite wellknown in the early church, because even though he claims no title and cites no personal credentials, he requires little introduction. It was sufficient to identify himself in verse 1 simply as "a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Since there was no better-known James in the early church, and since no other brothers named "James" and "Jude" (or "Judas") are ever mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, the conclusion seems inescapable that "Jude...... brother of James" is the same "Judas" named twice in the Gospels as a half brother of Christ.   How amazing that two of Jesus' own earthly brothers were used by the Spirit of God to write New Testament books. Neither was an apostle, but their work was recognized by the apostles and the early church as divinely inspired. And these epistles were both inspired and preserved by the Spirit of God and handed down to us as part of the New Testament canon.   Jude's humble identification of himself as "a bondservant of Jesus Christ" tells us a lot about this man. In Jude's own mind, whatever earthly connection he had with Jesus as a half brother by blood, and whatever personal relationship he had with Jesus as a close family member and younger brother, everything earthly gave way to a much more profound spiritual and heavenly relationship, in which Jude regarded Jesus as sovereign Lord and divine Master over his life.   That is particularly fascinating when we reflect on the earlier unbelief of Jude and his brothers (John 7:5). Apparently, all Jesus' unbelieving siblings became believers after the Resurrection. These two, James and Jude, clearly became influential church leaders. And although Jesus' other siblings are not mentioned by name outside the Gospels, they likewise must have been eyewitnesses to the Resurrection. Acts 1:14 strongly implies that they all became believers, because it says, "Mary the mother of Jesus, and..... His brothers" were together with the apostles, all praying in one accord in the Upper Room just prior to Pentecost.   Since a mere forty days elapsed between Jesus' crucifixion (on Passover) and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, it appears Jesus' earthly siblings came to saving faith after He died for them.   Jude must have been deeply humbled by his earlier unbelief, and he certainly would have been in awe of the reality that his eldest half brother was actually the incarnate Son of God, who died for Jude's sin and unbelief and then rose triumphantly from the dead. That event evidently changed Jude's whole perception of Jesus and who He was. He no longer thought of Him as a mere brother. Thus Jude simply refers to himself as "a bondservant of Jesus Christ"--and mentions that he is brother to James.   -A Sudden Change Of Agenda Although we are nowhere given the details of Jude's conversion or experience as a believer, by the time he penned his famous epistle, it was clear that he had become a respected voice of authority among the saints and an effective warrior for the truth. He doesn't identify his original audience. It could be a single church or a group of churches. He seems to have had Jewish believers predominantly in mind, as the epistle is full of Old Testament imagery. But there are no other solid clues about the original recipients of this epistle. Moreover, Jude wastes no time in the introduction establishing or defending his own credentials. It is plain to see that he was already well-known and highly regarded by the people to whom he wrote.   And Jude likewise knew them well. He was certain of their calling (v.1). He gave them a warm but very brief blessing of "Mercy, peace, and love" (v.2). He called them "Beloved" (v.3). He wrote as a familiar friend and spiritual mentor.   But Jude also wrote with a tone that is as urgent as the epistle is brief. Verses 3-4 explain the gravity of the issues that compelled Jude to write. He had initially intended to write an edifying message of comfort and encouragement about the salvation all believers enjoy. But he was dissuaded from that goal before he even began to write: "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (vv.3-4).   The apostle Paul began his epistle to the Galatians with a similar note of urgency and solemnity, foregoing the gracious words of commendation that were an essential part of Paul's normal pattern. Even when he wrote to the problem-filled church at Corinth, Paul had words of approval and appreciation for them (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 and 2 Corinthians 1:7). But the great apostle completely omitted any note of encouragement when he wrote to the Galatians. Hardly a word of endorsement or praise for them can be found anywhere in the entire epistle. Instead, he pronounced a somber double curse against false teachers in their midst (Galatians 1:8-9). The opening nine verses of Galatians seem designed to leave readers shaken and breathless, and thereby to jolt them away from the false teachers' seductive influence.   Jude is driven by similar concerns, and he likewise hurries to the point. In some ways, the opening verses of Jude are even more abrupt than Galatians 1. Verse 3-4 constitute one of the most compelling and sobering introductions to any epistle in the New Testament. Think of it: Jude is saying that he sat down to write a positive, encouraging epistle celebrating the joys of salvation, but--grasping the current urgency and willingly following the Holy Spirit's sovereign control and inspiration--he was compelled to write something other than he had intended. His letter thus became a short, strongly worded warning urging them to fight for the faith.   What do you suppose happened to make Jude change the tone and substance of what he wrote? Jude doesn't say. Perhaps before he got started writing, he received information from somewhere--a report, a letter, or an eyewitness account telling him of a threat to the spiritual welling of this flock. Or it could simply be that the Lord supernaturally revealed something to him that prompted this change in the message.   Whatever the case, the Holy Spirit compelled Jude to take up an issue he had not planned to address. The glorious salvation about which Jude had planned to write was in danger of being severely compromised unless the church rose to the occasion of fighting for the gospel. So what evidently started out as a warm, friendly attempt to offer comfort and encouragement turned out instead to be a shrill call to arms. The whole epistle is a war cry that applies to all believers in all ages. Jude urges us to join the Truth War and side with the Lord.   Does it amaze you to think this was necessary even in the days of the apostles? We sometimes tend to think of the early church as pristine, pure, and untroubled by serious error. The truth is, it wasn't that way at all. From the very beginning, the enemies of truth launched an effort to infiltrate and confuse the people of God by mangling the truth and by blending lies with Christian doctrine. Attacks against the truth regularly came not only from persecutors on the outside but also from false teachers and professing believers within the visible community of the church. Satan's strategy of placing his ministers within the church to sow bad doctrine was proving dangerously effective even while the New Testament was still being written (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).   Incidentally, Jude's epistle contains a nearly exact repetition of the words of the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 2:1-3:4, which had almost certainly already been written and circulated. In fact, we're drawn to the conclusion that 2 Peter was written before Jude because Jude 18 quotes 2 Peter 3:3, and in verse 17, Jude expressly acknowledges that it was from an apostle. Also, 2 Peter 2:1-2 and 3:3 anticipate the coming of false teachers; Jude expressly states that "certain men have crept in unnoticed".   So false teachers had already infiltrated the church. They were at that moment safely ensconced in the community of believers. They were being accepted as fellow believers, and their poisonous false teaching was spreading in the church. Jude urged believers to oppose them rather than embrace them. The life of the church depended on it.   -Stealth Apostasy False teaching by deceptive spiritual terrorists infiltrating the church has always plagued the church. Whether they are conscious of it or not, false teachers are satanic missionaries sent to produce more apostates. Satan's design is to lead people who have been exposed to the gospel away from it into damning error. There are always people in and around the church who have heard the truth and understood it but who have not yet embraced it and committed to it savingly. They can be led to reject it, and that is exactly what the evil one hopes to accomplish.   This problem was not unique to the congregation Jude was addressing. Apostasy is familiar theme in Scripture. Jude is the only book of the Bible solely devoted to the subject (thus highlighting the urgency of Jude's message). But many of the New Testament epistles have quite a lot to say about the dangers of apostasy and false doctrine. This was clearly a major, widespread problem from the very earliest days of church history. Several of the Epistles--in particular Hebrews, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 2 and 3 John--were prompted in part or in whole by the need to address the errors of various false teachers who were leading people astray.   This was not unexpected, of course. Jesus Himself told a familiar parable illustrating how easily some people fall away from truth into apostasy. The parable of the soils is found in Matthew 13 and Luke 8, and it pictures God's Word as seed being sown in four types of soils: hard soil, shallow soil, weedy soil, and good soil. The soils represent human hearts in various stages of receptivity. Jesus explained the symbolism of the parable in Luke 8:11-15:   "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasure of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience."   Notice: three of the four soils picture people who hear the Word and turn away. Some (the hard-soil hearers) turn away almost immediately because "the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." They are careless hearers--heedless, spiritually unresponsive people upon whom the Word of God has no lasting effect.   Others (the weedy-soil hearers) may show early signs of life but never bear any fruit because, before the Word of God can bear fruit in their lives, worldly desires choke the life out of any spiritual interests these people ever had. They may appear to grow and thrive for a time, but they never really experience conversion (which is the first and most essential "fruit" alluded to in this parable). And in the end, they fall away. As long as these worldly, superficial hearers identify with the people of God, they are a threat to the spiritual well-being of the church.   But the greatest threat of all comes from the shallow-soil hearers. They "receive the word with joy; (but they) have no root. (they) believe for a while (but) in time of temptation fall away." Their initial response to the gospel is all positive--even enthusiastically so. They give every appearance of genuine life and viability. But "these have no root," and therefore their "faith" cannot last. It will never bear any true spiritual fruit because it isn't even real faith. Such people "believe for a while" only in the most cursory sense: they hear the truth, understand the truth, and superficially affirm the truth. But because they have no root, they will never produce authentic fruit.   Jude 12 actually borrows from the exact same imagery as the parable of the soils, describing apostates as "autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots." These superficial “saints" are actually rootless, fruitless, and dead. So they inevitably fall away.   That is the very essence of apostasy: hearing the truth, knowing what it is, professing to accept it, and then finally rejecting it. Because the final disavowal of the truth occurs with full knowledge and understanding, this is a fatal apostasy from which there is no hope of recovery. It is precisely the sin described in such chilling terms in Hebrews 6:4-6: "It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."   Jesus' parable of the soils pictures what Hebrews 6 describes. It is also exactly what Jude is writing about: apostasy.   Apostasy is not merely a problem for peripheral or obviously half-hearted disciples. Christian leaders sometimes apostatize too. Because they love power and prestige-or because of other equally sinister motives, such as lust (Jude 4; 2 Peter 2:10) and greed (Jude 11; 1 Timothy 6:5)--even when they "fall away," apostate leaders don't necessarily leave the visible church. They frequently remain and continue to function as preachers, teachers, or authors. Certainly, they pretend to be Christians. They cover up their defection with subtlety. They profess faithfulness to the truth even as they try to undermine its foundations. Influential people who profess or pretend to believe the truth although they do not savingly believe it are probably the greatest internal danger the church faces.   Church history is filled with examples of this--from the Judaizers whose false gospel confused the Galatian churches, to the many corrupt televangelists of today whose avarice, moral failures, false prophecies, phony "miracles," and erroneous doctrine are a reproach to Christianity and a stumbling block to the undiscerning.   To some degree, apostasy is always a willful and deliberate sin. An apostate is not someone who is merely indifferent to God's Word or ignorant about what it teaches. Someone who has never even heard the truth is not an "apostate," even though he or she might be a teacher in a false religion. Apostasy is a far worse sin than that. An apostate is someone who has received the light but not the life, the seed but not the fruit, the written Word but not the living Word, the truth but not a love for the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10).   That is not to suggest that apostates themselves are never deluded or confused. Usually these deceivers are themselves subject to blinding kinds of deception (2 Timothy 3:13). They may actually imagine that in some sense they are serving the cause of truth (cf. John 16:2). But at one point or another, they have willfully rejected the truth with sufficient knowledge and understanding to be fully responsible for it. That is what makes the sin of apostasy so evil: it begins with a deliberate rejection of the truth after the truth has been heard and understand.   Acts 8:9-25 gives a classic biblical example of how apostasy can occur. There we meet Simon, a magician who, according to Luke, had made his reputation by astonishing the people of Samaria with "sorcery" (most likely by sleight of hand), claiming he was someone great and powerful. In other words, Simon was a professional con artist. According to Luke, the people of Samaria believed Simon's tricks were wrought by "the great power of God" (v.10).   But when the gospel came to Samaria, everything changed. Verses 10-12 say, "When (the Samaritans) believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done."   We can be certain that Philip's message was a clear, complete, accurate, faithful presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. People--evidently lots of them--were being baptized. Philip was having a profound evangelistic impact among the Samaritans, and the gospel reverberated so deeply into the community that even Simon the magician "believed."   How authentic Simon's faith at first appeared is seen in the fact that he was baptized and "continued with Philip" and was amazed at what he saw. Signs and wonders (truly great miracles, not tricks) were taking place, and Simon was genuinely astonished. An expert in clever illusions and hocus-pocus, he saw plainly and understood immediately that Philip was no cheap grifter. He could see right away that Philip's message was truth, and Simon's initial response was all positive. At least on a superficial level, he "believed." That is, when he saw the truth and understood it, he didn't reject it outright.   But verses 18-19 tell us, "When Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, 'Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.'" Apparently, when the apostles laid hands on the new believers in Samaria, there was some visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit's coming to that person. In all likelihood, the Samaritan converts spoke in tongues miraculously (not with mere gibberish, but in known, recognizable languages) just as the first believers at Pentecost had. The outpouring of languages would have been a clear sign that the Samaritans were receiving the same Holy Spirit on the same terms as the original Jewish believers, lest there be a division in the church. When Simon witnessed such a wondrous sign, he desperately wanted the power to perform that miracle at will.   Remember, Simon had believed, been baptized, continued with Philip, observed all the signs, and was constantly and positively amazed. By all outward appearances, his faith seemed authentic. But Peter said to him, "Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money!" (v.20). Peter clearly regarded Simon's request as evidence that the magician was not a real believer at all. "You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God" (v.21).   That, by the way, is known as the direct method of confronting an apostate.   Notice that in Peter's subsequent call for Simon's repentance, the apostle speaks of forgiveness in almost hypothetical terms, suggesting that Simon's sin was so serious that it might not even be forgivable: “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" (vv.22-23).   Simon pleaded for Philip to pray for him, "that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me" (v.24). He was obviously shaken and terrified by Philip's rebuke--for the moment, at least.   Simon's sense of dread at the prospect of his own apostasy does not seem to have lasted long. Apparently, he fell away from Christ forever that very day. He is never again mentioned by Luke (or anywhere else in the biblical record). But Justin Martyr, an apologist in the early church who was himself a Samaritan and who lived barely a generation after Simon's time, and there is no reason to doubt Justin's account. He says Simon was from the Samaritan village of Gitta. Justin and Irenaeus (a close contemporary of Justin's and fellow apologist) both record that Simon began one of the very first quasi-Christian cults. According to Irenaeus, the magician borrowed biblical imagery and biblical terminology and adapted them to various myths that he invented about himself--including the blasphemous claim that Simon himself was the true God incarnate. Simon is regarded by many early church historians as the founder of the first full-fledged gnostic sect. He is known in church history as Simon Magus, and from his name is derived the term simony, the practice of selling ecclesiastical offices for money. No one is more dangerous to the Christian faith than an aggressive apostate. The career of Simon gave early proof of that.   Those who have seen the truth of the gospel, professed to believe it, and then turned away from the faith have no hope of redemption. Both Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-30 condemn that kind of apostasy with a tone of utter finality, suggesting that those who fall away willfully never do come back to the faith. Peter likewise said of apostates, "If, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them"(2 Peter 2:20-21).   But people in that position often do devote their lives to attacking the truth they have rejected--and they normally use subtlety to do it. The rest of their lives, they say things like, "I've been there; done that--and it doesn't work. I used to believe that, but it's not true. I'm enlighteded now. Let me enlighten you too." Or, as so many today are prone to say, "I used to be sure that I knew and understood what Scripture means; but I'm not so arrogant as to make that claim anymore." Again, this is a classic echo of the serpent's message to Eve: "Has God indeed said.....? Well, listen to me instead, and your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God"(cf. Genesis 3:1, 5).   -The Long War For The Truth Like sin itself, apostasy is by no means a recent phenomenon, and it is not even something unique to the Christian era. From that moment in the garden when the serpent brought his war against truth into the world of humanity--through the close of the Old Testament canon and beyond, right down to the present day--the campaign against truth has been unrelenting and shockingly effective.   Again and again in the Old Testament, Israel was solemnly warned not to defect. Apostates nonetheless can be found in every period of Old Testament history. At times, it seemed as if the entire nation had apostatized at once. In Elijah's generation, for instance (at a time when the total population of Israel almost surely could be counted in the millions), the number of the faithful dwindled to some seven thousand (1 Kings 19:18). Elijah even imagined for a while that he was the last true believer alive!   During Jeremiah's lifetime, the size of the faithful remnant was probably smaller still. Almost everyone in Israel was utterly hostile to Jeremiah's ministry. After four decades of powerful preaching, the great prophet stood essentially alone. Scripture gives no indication that he ever saw a single convert.   Throughout Old Testament history, the problem of apostasy was pervasive, and times of widespread faithfulness in the nation, such as the sweeping revival discribed in Nehemiah 8, were exceptional and mostly short-lived. Nehemiah's revival quickly gave way to a watered-down and halfhearted form of religion (Nehemiah 13). Spiritual lukewarmness dominated Israel's later history. The whole nation finally became so utterly apostate that when the promised Messiah was born, virtually everyone missed the true significance of the event. Within three years of the start of His public ministry, they were crying for Him to be murdered as a dangerous imposter and threat to their religion. From a human perspective, it might even seem as if the enemies of truth usually had the upper hand in the Old Testament era.   It is no surprise, then, that the word apostasia appears several times in the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that predates Christ by a couple of hundred years). In Joshua 22:22, for example, apostasy is characterized as "rebellion (and) treachery" against "the Lord God of gods." Jeremiah 2:19 likewise employs the word apostasia to describe the backslidings of those who utterly forsook the Lord. That same verse defines the essence of all apostasy: "'The fear of Me is not in you,' says the Lord God of hosts."   So apostasy, appalling and dismal though it is, has been an ever-present reality throughout all of redemptive history. Many people who know the truth reject it anyway, and thus it has always been. In that respect, the times in which we live are by no means extraordinary.   Even Jesus' ministry provides a startling picture of real-life apostasy. John 6 records how large crowds showed up wherever He went while He was performing miracles. But they turned away en masse when He began to proclaim truth they did not want to hear. In most cases, it appears, their rejection of Christ was nothing less than final and irremediable apostasy. Near the end of that long, tragic chapter, verse 66 says this: "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more."   Jesus' teaching made the truth starkly clear. These people, who evidently saw the truth plainly and understood Jesus' teaching perfectly well, turned away anyway. In fact, the utter clarity of the truth for what it was, they simply hated it. It was too demanding, too unpopular, too inconvenient, too much of a threat to their own agenda, and too much of a rebuke to their sin. Remember, "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).   So that is how the New Testament era began. Scripture also teaches that apostasy will be widespread at the end of the age. In the Olivet Discouse, Jesus gave an extended description of the last days, including this: "Many false prophets will rise up and deceive many" (Matthew 24:11). Peter likewise prophesied that "scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming?'" (2 Peter 3:3-4). In 1 Timothy 4:1-2, the apostle Paul says, "The Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron." As a matter of fact, one of the major turning points at the end of this age will be a worldwide renunciation of the truth and a wholesale rejection of Christ, known as "the falling away"(apostasia), according to 2 Thessalonians 2:3.   So apostasy is a fact of all history, and there is never any kind of armistice in the Truth War. Our generation is certainly no exception to that rule. Some of the greatest threats to truth today come from within the visible church. Apostates are there in vast abundance--teaching lies, popularizing gross falsehoods, reinventing essential doctrines, and even redefining truth itself. They seem to be everywhere in the evangelical culture today, making merchandise of the gospel.   But false teachers aren't necessarily even that obvious. They don't wear badges identifying themselves as apostates. They usually try hard not to stand out as enemies of truth. They pretend devotion in Christ and demand tolerance from Christ's followers. They are often extremely likable, persuasive, and articulate people. According to Jude, that is what makes apostasy such an urgent matter of concern for the church. It produces people who can infiltrate the church by "(creeping) in unnoticed" (Jude 4).   Paradoxically, people sometimes imagine today that there are no such thing as false teachers and apostates, since Christianity has become so broad and all-embracing. There is no need to engage in a battle for the truth--since truth itself is infinitely pliable and thus capable of making room for everyone's views. Some have even suggested that truth is broad enough to accommodate all well-intentioned ideas from non-Christian religions. The problem of apostasy, then, is especially acute in the radically tolerant climate of today's postmodern drift.   Many Christian today are weary of the long war over truth. They are uneasy about whether doctrinal disagreement and divisions are a blight on the spiritual unity of the church and therefore a poor testimony to the world. These and similar questions are constantly heard nowadays: "Isn't it time to set aside our differences and just love one another?" "Rather than battling people with whom we disagree over various points of doctrine, why not stage a cordial dialogue with them and listen to their ideas?" "Can't we have a friendly conversation rather than a bitter clash?" "Shouldn't we be congenial rather than contentious?" "Does the current generation really need to perpetuate the fight over beliefs and ideologies? Or can we at last declare peace and set aside all the debates over doctrine?"   Of course, there is a legitimate concern in the tone of such questions. Scripture commands us: "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18). "Pursue peace with all people" (Hebrews 12:14). "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). Taken together, these passages make it clear that what Scripture demands of us is the polar opposite of a cantankerous attitude. No one who exhibits the fruit of the Spirit can possibly take delight in conflict. So it should be plain that the call to contend for the faith is not a license for pugnacious spirits to promote strife deliberately over insignificant matters. Even when conflict proves unavoidable, we are not to adopt a mean spirit.   But conflict is not always aviodable. That is Jude's whole point in writing his epistle. To remain faithful to the truth, sometimes it is even necessary to wage "civil war" within the church--especially when enemies of truth posing as brethern and believers are smuggling dangerous heresy in by stealth.   -When It's Time To Go To War Jude's words stress the pressing urgency and the absolute necessity of the Truth War: “I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith" (v.3) The expression‎ "contend earnestly" is translated from a strong Greek verb epagonizomai, literally meaning "agonize against." The word describes an intensive, arduous, drawn-out fight. There is nothing passive, peaceful, or easy about it. Jude "exhorted" them--meaning he urged and commanded them--to wage a mighty battle on behalf of the true faith.   Jude himself says he felt the necessity to write this command. He employs a verb that speaks of pressure. In other words, he sensed a strong, God-given compulsion to write these things. He was not writing them because he took some kind of perverse glee in being militant. He was not responding to a momentary whimsy or personal anger. This was critical, and since the writers of Scripture never wrote by human self-will, but only as they were moved by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:21), the extreme urgency of Jude reflects the sovereign influence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore also the mind of Christ.   We thus have an urgent mandate from God Himself to do our part in the Truth War. The Holy Spirit, through the pen of Jude, is urging Christians to exercise caution, discernment, courage, and the will to contend earnestly for the truth.   Notice what we are supposed to be fighting for. It is not anything petty, personal, mundane, or ego related. This warfare has a very narrow objective. What we are called to defend is no less than "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."   Jude is speaking of apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:42)--objective Christian truth--the faith, as delivered from Jesus through the agency of the Holy Spirit by the apostles to the church. As he says in verse 17: "Remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice: no one discovered or invented the Christian faith. It was delievered to us. It was not as if someone mystically ascended into the transcendental realm and drew down an understanding of the truth. We don't need an enlightened guru to open the mysteries of the faith for us (1 John 2:27). The truth was entrusted by God to the whole church--intact and "once for all." it came by revelation, through the teaching of the apostles as preserved for us in Scripture. Jude speaks of "the faith" as a complete body of truth already delivered--so there is no need to seek additional revelation or to embellish the substance of "the faith" in any way. Our task is simply to interpret, understand, publish, and defend the truth God has once and for all delievered to the church.   That is what the Truth War is ultimately all about. It is not mere wrangling between competing earthly ideologies. It is not simply a campaign to refine someone's religious creed or win a denominational spitting contest. It is not a battle of wits over arcane theological fine points. It is not an argument for sport. It is not like a school debate, staged to see who is more skilled or more clever in the art of argumentation. It is not merely academic in any sense. And it is certainly not a game. It is a very serious struggle to safeguard the heart and soul of truth itself and to unleash that truth against the powers of darkness--in hopes of rescuing the eternal souls of men and women who have been unwittingly ensnared by the trap of devilish deception.   This is a battle we cannot wage effectively if we always try to come across to the world as merely nice, nonchalant, docile, agreeable, and fun-loving people. We must not take our cues from people who are perfectly happy to compromise the truth wherever possible "for harmony's sake." Friendly dialogue may sound affable and pleasant. But neither Christ nor the apostles ever confronted serious, soul-destroying error by building collegial relationships with false teachers. In fact, we are expressly forbidden to do that (Romans 16:17; 2 Corinthians 6:14-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 3:5; 2 John 10-11). Scripture is clear about how we are to respond when the very foundations of the Christian faith are under attack, and Jude states it succinctly: it is our bounden duty to contend earnestly for the faith.   Notice carefully: Jude is not suggesting that Christians should contend among themselves over every petty disagreement or divide into factions over every personality conflict. In fact, that is the very thing the apostle Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 3:3-7. Divisiveness and sectarianism are terrible sins that hurt the church when major divisions are manufactured out of petty differences over trivial, doubtful, indifferent, or less-than-vital matters (Romans 14:1).   Now, you might think that the difference between a picayune disagreement and a serious threat to some core truth of Christianity would always be obvious and clear-cut. Usually, it is. Most of the time, it is easy enough to see the distinction between a peripheral issue and a matter of urgent and fundamental importance. But not always. And here is where mature wisdom and careful discernment become absolutely crucial for every Christian: sometimes serious threats to our faith come in subtle disguise so that they are barely noticeable. And false teachers like to surround their deadly error with some truth. Therein lies the seduction. We must never assume that things like the teacher's reputation, the warmth of his personality, or majority opinion about him are perfectly safe barometers of whether his teaching is really dangerous or not. We also shouldn't imagine that common sense, intuition, or first impressions are reliable ways of determining whether this or that error poses a serious threat or not. Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the only safe guide in this area.   As we are about to see, that is one of the key lessons church history has to teach us.