For more on Balaam, see here.
Who is John?
Traditions about John at Ephesus
Some of the early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus of Lyons (130-200 AD) and Clement of Rome (100 AD), said that John, the son of Zebedee, the fisherman from Galilee, was the author of the Gospel of john and that this was written while John was in Ephesus. However, Papias, bishop of Hieropolis (60-130 AD), said that there were two Johns, the apostle who was dead and the elder who was still alive. Dionysius, a later bishop of Ephesus, confirmed that there were two tombs at Ephesus, both ascribed to John. In any case, a strong tradition connected to the Gospel with Ephesus. The conclusion seems to be again that the authority for this Gospel was that of John, son of Zebedee, but that it was either written or edited later by an elder, also living at Ephesus, and also named John. The 2nd and 3rd letters of John are both addressed from “The Elder” and are probably entirely the work of the second John. (Ronald Brownrigg, Who’s Who in the New Testament, p. 221)
In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that the First Epistle of John and the Gospel of John are widely agreed upon as his. However, Eusebius mentions that the consensus is that the second and third epistles of John are not his but were written by some other John. Eusebius also goes to some length to establish with the reader that there is no general consensus regarding the revelation of John. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book vi. Chapter xxv)
The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his “Dialogue with Tryphon” (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to “John, one of the Apostles of Christ” as a witness who had lived “with us”, that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Against Heresies III.1.1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Church History III.13.1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle’s banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian’s testimony (De praescript., xxxvi), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Porta Latina at Rome without suffering injury. After Domitian’s death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age. Tradition reports many beautiful traits of the last years of his life: that he refused to remain under the same roof with Cerinthus (Irenaeus “Ad. haer.”, III, iii, 4); his touching anxiety about a youth who had become a robber (Clemens Alex., “Quis dives salvetur”, xiii); his constantly repeated words of exhortation at the end of his life, “Little children, love one another” (Jerome, “Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.”, vi, 10).
Book 3:18 — The Apostle John and the Apocalypse (Revelation)
It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:
“If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”
Book 3:23 – John rescues a lost soul
In Asia, moreover, there still remained alive the one whom Jesus loved, apostle and evangelist alike, John, who had directed the churches there since his return from exile on the island, following Domitian’s death. That he survived so long is proved by the evidence of two witnesses who could hardly be doubted, ambassadors as they were of the orthodoxy of the Church–Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. In Book II of his Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes:
All the clergy who in Asia came in contact with John, the Lord’s disciple, testify that John taught the truth to them; for he remained with them till Trajan’s [98 to 117 A.D.] time.
In Book III of the same work he says the same thing:
The church at Ephesus was founded by Paul, and John remained there till Trajan’s time; so she is a true witness of what the apostles taught.
Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable. In it we read the following:
“Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant’s death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.
When he had come to one of the cities not far away (the name of which is given by some and had consoled the brethren in other matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of ardent temperament, he said, ‘This one I commit to thee in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.’ And when the bishop had accepted the charge and had promised all, he repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus.
But the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon him the seal of the Lord he had given him a perfect protection.
But some youths of his own age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus prematurely freed from restraint. At first they enticed him by costly entertainments; then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they took him with them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with them in some greater crime.
He gradually became accustomed to such practices, and on account of the positiveness of his character, leaving the right path, and taking the bit in his teeth like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, he rushed the more violently down into the depths.
And finally despairing of salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having committed some great crime, since he was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like fate with the rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, most cruel of them all. Time passed, and some necessity having arisen, they sent for John. But he, when he had set in order the other matters on account of which he had come, said, ‘Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit which both I and Christ committed to thee, the church, over which thou presidest, being witness.’
But the bishop was at first confounded, thinking that he was falsely charged in regard to money which he had not received, and he could neither believe the accusation respecting what he had not, nor could he disbelieve John. But when he said, ‘I demand the young man and the soul of the brother,’ the old man, groaning deeply and at the same time bursting into tears, said, ‘He is dead.’ ‘How and what kind of death?’ ‘He is dead to God,’ he said; ‘for he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, he haunts the mountain with a band like himself.’
But the Apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head with great lamentation, he said, ‘A fine guard I left for a brother’s soul! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.’ He rode away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place, he was taken prisoner by the robbers’ outpost.
He, however, neither fled nor made entreaty, but cried out, ‘For this did I come; lead me to your captain.’
The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was. But when he recognized John approaching, he turned in shame to flee.
But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might, crying out, ‘Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thine own father, unarmed, aged? Pity me, my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death as the Lord suffered death for us. For thee will I give up my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.’
And he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down; then he threw away his arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And when the old man approached, he embraced him, making confession with lamentations as he was able, baptizing himself a second time with tears, and concealing only his right hand.
But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness with the Saviour, besought him, fell upon his knees, kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by repentance, and led him back to the church. And making intercession for him with copious prayers, and struggling together with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not depart, as they say, until he had restored him to the church, furnishing a great example of true repentance and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection.”
This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle. (The Sacred Writings of Eusebius of Pamphilus, p. 117-119)
Teachings about John In Latter-day Saint Scripture
Jesus, speaking to his twelve disciples in the Americas said:
And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?
And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto him the thing which they desired.
And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father. (3 Nephi 28.4-8)
The New Testament’s account in John is somewhat cryptic:
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? (John 21.20-23)
The Doctrine and Covenants explains things more clearly:
And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom.
I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done.
Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.
And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.
Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired.
So who wrote 1-3 John?
The author of 1 John did not identify himself in the epistle; however, as early as the second century, Christian scholars have identified the author as the Apostle John, one of the original Twelve. Some commentators have noted similarities between 1–3 John and the Gospel of John, suggesting that they had a common author. In addition, the author of the Epistles of John was an eyewitness of the resurrected Savior, which was certainly true of John the Apostle. (New Testament Institute Manual, chapter 52: 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude)
Today, the majority of scholars believe that this writer was not the author of the Gospel of John; rather, he was someone living in the same community at a somewhat later time, a person who knew the teachings found in the Gospel and who addressed problems that had arisen in the community after the Gospel had been circulated.
On the one hand, the author of 1, 2, and 3 John seems to understand the Christian faith in terms quite similar to those found in the Fourth Gospel, for a number of themes that are important in the Gospel appear here in the epistles as well. Yet the writing styles are not the same, and the problems in the community appear to be quite different. As one salient example, the problem of the community’s relationship to the Jewish synagogue, one of the primary concerns of the Fourth Gospel, is completely missing from these epistles. Perhaps with the passing of time, the pain of this earlier crises faced and new problems arose; then a new author, intimately familiar with the community’s Gospel and influenced by the ways it understood the faith, wrote to address these problems. This would explain both the similarities of the epistles to the Gospel and the differences. (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, p. 164)
We do not know who wrote these texts.
The Main Point of 1-3 John
Avoid Apostasy
John warns against Antichrists – these evil people that “They went out from us, but they were not of us…they were not all of us”… (1 John 2.19) Essentially what John is saying in 1 John 2.19 is to beware of Christians teaching unorthodox teaching – these people are teaching that Jesus either:
From the very earliest of Christian history those who called Jesus “Lord” disagreed whether the divine or the human character of Jesus was more fundamental to his nature. On one hand, the early teachers of Christianity taught that he was a man – he slept, ate, and was hungry. Jesus sweat, and suffered, and died on the cross. On the other hand, Jesus was God incarnate, he walked on water, created the cosmos, and rose from the dead. Some Christians emphasized his God nature to the point that they denied he had a human body, much less a human mind. These were called Docetists, from a Greek word dokeo, which means “to seem”… Justin Martyr said of them, “There are some who declare that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, but only as spirit, and exhibited an appearance as flesh.” (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 141) On the other hand, some stressed Jesus’ human nature, looking on his as primarily a good man, although a mortal son of Joseph and Mary, who was adopted by God the Father as his special son due to his strict adherence to the Law and righteousness. These Christians were called Adoptionists.
Both groups of early Christians taught varying forms of Christianity that John opposed. These forms of Christianity became the backdrop for what later Christians would use to help define what orthodoxy looked like.
The Ebionites
The Ebionites were one of several such sects that originated in and around Palestine in the first centuries AD and included the Nazarenes. The name of the sect is from the Hebrew ebyonim, or ebionim (“the poor”). The precise origin of the name is not known.
Little information exists on the Ebionites, and the surviving accounts are subject to considerable debate, since they are uniformly derived from the Ebionites’ opponents. The first mention of the sect is in the works of the Christian theologian Irenaeus, notably in his Against Heresies; c. 180; other sources include the writings of Origen and Epiphanius of Constantia. The Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (AD 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Pella and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt. This group of Christians seems to have existed into the 4th century.
According to early sources such as Irenaeus, the Ebionites believed in one God and taught that Jesus was the Messiah and was the true “prophet” mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Ebionites believed Jesus became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish Law. They used only Matthew’s gospel, had a great respect for Jerusalem, observed the law of circumcision, the Law, and a Jewish way of life. Origin does confirm much of what Irenaeus says, also stating that there was a group of Ebionites who actually accepted the Virgin Birth. (Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p. 357)
The Ebionites were one form of Adoptionists, they taught and believed that Jesus was a mortal man who became endowed with the Spirit of the Lord later in life. Some Adoptionists believed Jesus “became” God’s son at his baptism, others at his resurrection, but they all held the common belief that Jesus was born of two mortal parents.
The Docetists
A particular philosophy that was gaining popularity at the time was Docetism. Docetism was part of a larger movement known as Gnosticism. A core teaching in many forms of Gnosticism was that the spirit was wholly good and that matter, including the physical body, was wholly evil. Followers of Gnosticism believed that salvation was not achieved by being freed from sin but rather by freeing the spirit from matter, meaning the physical body. They also believed that salvation was achieved through special knowledge (gnosis) rather than through faith in Jesus Christ.
Followers of Docetism overemphasized Jesus’s spiritual nature to the point that they rejected the idea that He came to earth in actual bodily form. They believed that God was invisible, immortal, all-knowing, and immaterial, and they considered the physical world and the physical body to be base and evil. Therefore, they believed that since Jesus was the divine Son of God, He could not have experienced the limitations of being human. In their view, Jesus Christ was not literally born in the flesh, and He did not inhabit a tangible body, bleed, suffer, die, or rise with a physical resurrected body—He only seemed to do these things. Docetism comes from the Greek dokeo, meaning “to seem” or “to appear.”
John refuted these false teachings by bearing witness of the Savior’s physical existence (see 1 John 1:1–2; 4:2–3, 14; 5:6). He declared that Jesus Christ indeed came to earth in the flesh, that His suffering and death made up His redeeming act, and that God sent His Son because of His great love for us. (New Testament Institute Manual, chapter 52: 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude)
One Adoptionist whose teachings had traction about the time of the writing of 1-3 John was Cerinthus. According to Epiphanius, Cerinthus taught his followers that Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary, that he was not divine in the sense of being God’s Son, rather he taught what is called in scholarship a Adoptionist Christology. This is sometimes also called a “Low Christology” in the sense that Jesus is brought down to a lower station, being considered a son of two mortals. This Adoptionist view essentially was, to Cerinthus, that Jesus “became” divine at his baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and then later abandoned Jesus when he was crucified on the cross at Calvary. Here is a sample from Epiphanius (d. 403 AD): “and that when “Jesus,” the offspring of Mary and the seed of Joseph, had grown up, “Christ,” meaning the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, came down to him in the Jordan from the God on high, revealing the unknowable Father to him, and through him to his companions. And therefore, because a power had come to him from on high, he performed works of power. And when he suffered, the thing that had come from above flew away from Jesus to the heights. Jesus has suffered and risen again but the Christ who had come to him from above flew away without suffering. (Epiphanius, & Williams, F. (2009). The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Vol. 2nd ed., and expanded). Leiden: Brill, p. 116-117)
There is even a legend, reported by John’s disciple Polycarp, that the Apostle John and Cerinthus had an encounter in which when John saw Cerinthus in the same bath house he was entering in, exclaimed, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within!” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.34. See also: Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p. 232)
Understanding the arguments of the Ebionites and Docetists unlocks these texts. 1-3 John, when read against the historical background of these competing Christianities, makes total sense. The author was working to establish orthodoxy. Note the arguments laid out for us in the text:
- Wasn’t divine, or that his blood does not cleanse us (1 John 1.7). This was the Ebionite position. For them, Jesus was a man who lived the law, but he certainly was not literally a Son of God.
- Were in some way “denying the Father and the Son” (1 John 2.22-23). To the author of this text, both the Ebionites and the Docetists were guilty of this heresy.
- Teach that Jesus did not come “in the flesh” (1 John 4.1-3) – This was something the Docetists denied. Their version of Jesus was a God that if he walked in snow, would not leave footprints.
- Jesus came “by water and blood”… “not by water only” (he didn’t become divine at baptism, rather he was BORN divine) “but by water and blood.” (1 John 5.4-8). In other words, Jesus was BORN divine, from Mary, and from the Father. If Cerinthus wants to teach something else, then he is “denying the Father and the Son” (see #2 above). Just in case we miss it, the author of 1 John 5 states that these “three that bear witness in heaven” are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that there are “three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood…” (1 John 5.8) A good reading of this text is against the historical issues that these early Christians were facing when confronting Ebionites and Docetists who denied these very notions of Jesus, that he was Divine, Pre-Existent, and that he literally took upon himself flesh. Later Docetists would go so far as to say that the true Christ could not have assumed a material body that participated in the created world, for such a body would have been “stuffed with excrement.” (David S. Dockery and Timothy George, quoting an early Christian bishop Marcion (later deemed heretical), The Great Tradition of Christian Thinking: A Student’s Guide, p. 55. See also: Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (Chicago, 1971), 75.)
Jude
Authorship:
The author identifies himself as Jude, the common rendering of the name Judah or Judas. Jude the apostle, also referred to as Jude of James, Judas of James, Thaddeus, Judas Thaddeus, and Lebbaeus was one of the twelve main disciples of Jesus Christ. Some scholars believe he is the same person as Jude, brother of Jesus, who is traditionally regarded as the author of the Epistle of Jude.
One of the Twelve
One of the few concrete facts about “Jude of James” is that he was a member of the Twelve, making him one of Jesus’ closest disciples and confidants. While there are four lists of the Twelve apostles in the Bible, only two of them include Jude (or Judas, depending on the translation):
“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” —Luke 6.13-16
“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” —Acts 1.13
Interestingly, both of these lists were written by Luke. The other two lists appear to replace Jude with someone named Thaddeus, and there are different opinions regarding why this is the case. At any rate, his inclusion among the Twelve Apostles probably means Jude spent about three years living with Jesus, witnessing his miracles, and hearing his teachings. He saw numerous demonstrations of Jesus’ divinity.
Even though the Book of Acts and the epistles never describe Jude’s ministry, as one of the Twelve he probably would have been an important leader of the early movement of Jesus followers.
This was not Judas Iscariot
Depending on the translation you use, you may see Jude listed as Jude or Judas. These are two variations of the same Greek name, which is derived from the Hebrew and Aramaic name, Judah. Some scholars believe “Jude” first worked its way into our English translations to help avoid confusion with Judas Iscariot, whose name practically became a synonym for the traitor of Jesus and his followers in art, literature, and popular culture.
A man named Judas—presumably Jude the apostle—appears in John 14:22, and John makes a point of telling us this is not Judas Iscariot.
Some suggest this aversion to the name Judas is the same reason why Matthew and Mark replaced Jude with Thaddeus in their lists of disciples.
Was Jude the same as Thaddeus?
The lists of disciples in Matthew and Mark do not include Jude. Instead, we find a disciple named Thaddeus:
“These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.” —Mark 3.16-19
“These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.” Matthew 10.2-4
Some manuscripts say “Lebbaeus who was surnamed Thaddaeus.” Since his place on these lists is so close to Jude’s placement in Luke and Acts, over time in Christian tradition it came to be assumed that these were two names for the same person. This is why Jude is sometimes referred to as Jude Thaddeus or Judas Thaddeus.
Since the name “Judas” was so infamous within the Christian church, it wouldn’t be surprising if Matthew and Mark decided to use a different name for Jude. Modern biblical scholars are nearly unanimous in claiming that Saint Jude and Thaddeus did not represent the same person. (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew volume 3, p.130-133, 200 [“Christian imagination was quick to harmonize and produce Jude Thaddeus, a conflation that has no basis in reality.”])
While Luke records that the apostles gathered to appoint a new member of the Twelve after Judas’ betrayal (Acts 1.24–26), some argue that it’s possible Jude was either removed from the church or died, and the Bible just doesn’t record that he was replaced by Thaddeus.
Possibly the author of Jude
The author of the Book of Jude claims to be written by someone named Jude:
“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ . . .” —Jude 1
Again, Jude was a common name, so we can’t be certain this is referring to the same person as the disciple listed among the Twelve. The biggest clue comes from the association with James, which we’ll get into more below. Since the author doesn’t make any effort to describe which James he’s referring to, and James was such a common name, most scholars assume this is referring to James the Just—one of the main leaders of the early church believed to be the brother of Jesus. If he were referring to another James, the author would’ve likely made a distinction, since James the Just was so well-known within the church.
But whether or not the Jude who claims to be the author of this letter is the same person as the Jude listed among the Twelve largely depends on how we interpret the description “of James,” which Luke used to distinguish Jude from Judas Iscariot.
Either the brother of Jesus and James, or the son of James
A literal translation of how Luke describes Jude is “Jude of James.” This could mean that Jude is the son of James, but this could mean different things. Could this mean he is the brother of James? Maybe. Could the author of Jude be Jesus’ brother? If we accept that Jude the apostle is the same person as Jude, the author of Jude, and we accept that the James referred to in Jude 1 is James the Just, then Jude the apostle is also the brother of Jesus.
This line of reasoning can make sense, depending on how we read our Bible. Both Matthew and Mark inform readers that Jesus had a brother named Jude. (See Matthew 13.55 and Mark 6.3)
Possibly a doubter
The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus’ brothers encouraged him to go perform miracles in Judea, and it suggests a reason why they wanted him to go:
“Jesus’ brothers said to him, ‘Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.’ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.” —John 7.3–5
One of those brothers who didn’t believe in Jesus may have been Jude. At this point in the gospel narrative, Jesus had already performed many miracles and called his disciples. So it would be a little odd for Jesus to be this far along in his ministry and still have a disciple who didn’t believe in him.
It’s worth noting though, Jesus had at least four brothers, and John doesn’t specifically say that all of them didn’t believe in him. So it’s possible that his brother Judas believed, but the others didn’t. It’s also possible that Jesus’ brother Judas wasn’t the same person as the apostle Judas.
Jude Quotes 1 Enoch
1 Enoch 1.9:
9 And behold! He comes with ten thousand Holy Ones; to execute judgment upon them and to destroy the impious, and to contend with all flesh concerning everything that the sinners and the impious have done and wrought against Him.
(Deuteronomy 33:2), (Jude 1:14-15), (Psalm 68:16-17)
1 Enoch 67.4:
4. And He will imprison those angels, who have shown unrighteousness, in that burning valley which my grandfather Enoch had formerly shown to me in the west among the mountains of gold and silver and iron and soft metal and tin.
(Isaiah 24:21-23), (2 Peter 2:4), (Jude 1:5-6)
Jude 1.9 Michael Contending with the Devil for the Body of Moses
Jude 1:9 says that Michael the archangel disputed with the devil over the body of Moses. Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave insight about this verse: “Commentators assume … that Jude had before him and was quoting from a then current apocryphal book, ‘The Assumption of Moses,’ which has been preserved to us in fragmentary form only. This non-canonical work presents the doctrine that Moses was translated and taken up into heaven without tasting death. It appears to deal ‘with certain revelations made by Moses,’ and ‘with his disappearance in a cloud, so that his death was hid from human sight. … Michael was commissioned to bury Moses. Satan opposed the burial. … Finally, all opposition having been overcome, the assumption took place in the presence of Joshua and Caleb’ (R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2, pp. 407–413.)” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:421).
From the Book of Mormon we learn that Moses was translated and taken into heaven without tasting death (see Alma 45:19). This was necessary so that Moses could appear on the Mount of Transfiguration two thousand years later with his physical body and lay his hands on the heads of Peter, James, and John to give them priesthood keys (see History of the Church, 3:387).
Apocryphal books like the Assumption of Moses are not included in the Bible because of their dubious authenticity or validity. Even though these works often have some value, they are not felt to be correct in every particular. See Doctrine and Covenants 91 for what the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith about apocryphal works.
To read more about Michael the archangel, see Doctrine and Covenants 27:11; 29:26; 88:112–15; 107:54; 128:20–21. (New Testament Institute Manual, chapter 52: 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude)
The Message of Jude
Jude is essentially warning his readers of apostasy. Just as there were many anciently who apostatized, there were readers of his book that knew that the apostasy was happening all around them. Jude was reminding his readers of this and issuing a warning: just as the angels who rebelled in the first estate (Jude 1.6) and Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 1.7) was destroyed, those that reject true messengers and witnesses of Jesus would face consequences for rejecting Jesus Christ.
These apostates are described by Jude as “spots in your feasts of charity… feeding themselves without fear… clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever” (Jude 1.12-13)