Sermon Tone Analysis

Summary

In Jude 11-13, the author continues his portrayal of, and warning against, false teachers using three archetypal Old Testament episodes of rebellion and sin.

In these verses, Jude compares the false teachers and their content to the rebellion of Cain (Gen 4), the betrayal of Balaam (Num 22-25), and the rebellion of Korah (Num 16).

What is it about these three Old Testament episodes that led Jude to use them to describe the false teachers he opposed?

Was Jude tapping into Intertestamental Jewish tradition to do so?

Find out in this episode.

Well, let’s jump in here to Jude.

For today, Jude 11:13 is where we’re going to focus, but I’m going to read verses 10-13.

And again, it’s more bashing of the false teachers and they’re indicted as follows.

So beginning in verse 10 and reading from ESV:

So that’s a pretty dark picture.

In verse 11, Jude is comparing the false teachers to three more archetypal sinners or sin episodes in the Old Testament.

We’ve got Cain, Balaam’s error, and Korah’s rebellion.

Herb Bateman in his commentary translates verse 11 as follows:

The false teachers are damned because they have conducted themselves in the way of Cain and because of greed they have committed themselves to the error of Balaam, and because they will destroy themselves in the rebellion of Korah.

Now if you look at it that way, I think it becomes a little bit clearer as to why Jude is picking these examples.

Bateman adds:

Jude provides a threefold explanation whereby he likens the greed of the godless to that of Cain, Balaam, and Korah.

So that’s where, I think, Herb is right.

I think that’s where Jude is going with this, and he’s going to use these three examples.

So I’m going to go through each of the examples in our episode today.

What was it about each of these three examples that sort of was appealing or appropriate to compare the false teachers to?

Cain

We’ll start with Cain.

Jude says that the false teachers walked in the way of Cain, which is obviously a reference to the Cain and Abel story of Genesis 4:1-14.

And it most likely refers to Cain’s hatred.

He killed Abel and was judged.

We are not told why God didn’t accept Cain’s sacrifice back in Genesis 4. If you remember

the story, he accepts Abel’s sacrifice, but not Cain’s.

But Abel’s sacrifice is described as the best of the flock.

So perhaps Cain’s was not his best, but that can only be inferred.

It is never specifically stated back in Genesis 4. At any rate, Cain refuses to heed God’s warning to control his temper in Genesis 4:6-7.

So he ignores God’s warning and he kills his brother in anger and God punishes him with exile.

So the point would seem to be that as Cain was judged, so will these false teachers be judged.

Cain thus becomes in the Genesis story the archetypal exile, the person alienated from God.

So Jude is tapping into that to make the point that the false teachers are going to be alienated from God and people who follow them are going to be alienated from God. They’re going to be spiritual exiles.

Now Bateman summaries the Second Temple picture of Cain as follows because it has a lot to do with this archetypal exile figure.

He writes:

Portrayals of Cain in Second Temple literature interpret and even expand the account in Hebrew Scripture.

In subsequent reflections, Cain is painted as a person with a self-absorbed, militant, and greedy disposition, who keeps bad company and who lures other people to join him.

In his work The Worse Attacks the Better [ this is by Philo who wrote in the 30s -40s AD, so First Century], Philo alludes to Cain and Abel as a means to discuss opposing principles.

In contrast to Abel, whom Philo portrays as a selfless lover of God, Philo paints a narcissistic portrait of Cain: “but Cain, referring all to himself—his name means ‘acquisition’—a self-loving creed (or simply “self-centered,” φίλαυτον, philauton).

And lovers of self [φίλαυτοι (philautoi), or “self-centered people”], when they have stripped and prepared for conflict with those who value virtue, keep up the boxing and wrestling until they have either forced the opponents to give in, or have completely destroyed them.”

Thus in Philo’s opinion, a person would be ill-advised to stand toe-to-toe with a self-absorbed person whose life principles are patterned after Cain.

The second portrait, painted in another Second Temple text, presents Cain as a person who keeps bad company.

Written around AD 70, the Apocalypse of Abraham exposes Cain in heaven with “the crafty adversary,” as one who acts under the influence of “the lawless one,” and who in essence has joined hands with the devil:

So he quotes a portion here, Apocalypse of Abraham.

“And I saw, as it were, Adam, and Eve who was with him, and with them the crafty adversary and Cain, who had been led by the adversary to break the law, and (I saw) the murdered Abel (and) the perdition brought on him and given through the lawless one.”

Thus the depiction of Cain is one who keeps company with a crafty adversary (the devil).

The final set of portraits of Cain is displayed in Josephus, where Cain passes on to others his violent militancy and greed... Cain’s disposition for “gain” expands in Josephus as he describes Cain amassing great wealth at the expense of others.

His quest for luxury by violent means became a form of instruction for others to develop similar skills in order to feed their greed.

That’s the end of the Bateman quote.

So I’m going to quote from this Josephus passage because it’s kind of interesting—his portrayal of Cain.

This is from Josephus’ Antiquities 1.60, 61, and 66.

This is from the Whiston edition of Josephus.

So beginning with paragraph 60:

And when Cain had travelled over many countries, he, with his wife, built a city, named Nod, which is a place so called, and there he settled his abode; where also he had children.

However, he did not accept of his punishment, in order to amendment, but to increase his wickedness; for he only aimed to procure everything that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors.

He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine and violence [ I don’t know if that’s a typo for “raping” or not]; he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasures and spoils by robbery, and became a great leader of men into wicked courses.

He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights.

And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness… Nay, even while Adam was alive, it came to pass that the posterity of Cain became exceeding wicked, every one successively dying one after another more wicked than the former.

They were intolerable in war, and vehement in robberies; and if anyone were slow to murder people, yet was he bold in his profligate behavior, in acting unjustly and doing injuries for gain.

So that’s the end of the Josephus quote.

So it’s easy to see from these Second Temple literary examples, Philo and Josephus in particular… It’s easy to see how this view of Cain would make him a good archetypal villain for comparison to false teachers.

They only take; they do not produce anything of benefit.

They can only harm.

Like in verse 12 it says,

They produce nothing.

They give nothing.

They contribute nothing.

They only take.

So again, against the backdrop of that Second Temple Cain tradition, we can see that Jude is making good use of it to describe the false teachers

Balaam

So what was or is the error of Balaam?

This is from Numbers 22-24 that we read in the Old Testament about Balaam.

It never gets into the specific issue of a specific error or sin in those chapters, but there’s going to be a specific thing that Balaam does that does get referenced.

So I’m going to read Gene Green’s summary of the Balaam material from his commentary to orient us here:

The Balaam story was well known to Jude’s readers as were also the traditions that sprang from it.

Jude’s reflection is based on the story found in Num.

22–24.

Balak, the king of Moab, was greatly concerned about Israel’s expansion (Num.

22:1–4) and tried to persuade Balaam to curse Israel since, said Balak, “whomever you bless is blessed, and whomever you curse is cursed” (22:6 NRSV).

Balak offered him the world for his services: “I will reward you richly” (24:11 NRSV).

Despite the promised inducements, Balaam could do nothing more than bless Israel, which he did three times….

But the narrative in Num.

22–24 makes no mention of Balaam’s transgression, which Jude and other ancient commentators found so heinous.

However, the following narrative in Num. 25 tells how the Moabite women sexually enticed Israelite men and led them to sacrifice to their gods.

Later, in Num.

31:16, the Moabite tactic was laid down to “Balaam’s advice,” and Balaam is further charged with at least trying to curse Israel [ on the subsequent occasion at least trying] (Deut.

23:3–6; Josh.

24:9–10; Neh.

13:2) and practicing divination (Josh.

13:22).

Later tradition knew Balaam as one who was a diviner [ one who practices divination](Philo, Moses 1.48 §§264–65; Josephus, Ant.4.6.2 §104) but especially as a person driven by greed, who provoked the sin of the Israelites with the Moabite women (Philo, Moses 1.54–55 §§295–304; Josephus, Ant.

4.6.6–9

§§126–40; Tg.

Ps.-J. on Num.

24:14, 25; Ps.Philo, L.A.B. 18.13–14).

Again, he has the references here that Philo comments on this and Josephus comments on it as well.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan comments on it and also you find it in Pseudo-Philo.

So a lot of Second Temple traditions commented on Balaam and this Moabite tactic with the women, seducing the Israelite men into sacrificing to the gods.

This seems to be what they’re zeroed in on.

To finish Green’s section here, let me read one or two more sentence from him: