Jude 4 reads as follows:
For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (NRSV)
The parallel passage in 2 Peter reads thusly:
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord (δεσπότης) that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet 2:1)
Commenting on the meaning of “master” (δεσπότης) and “Lord” (κύριος) in Jude 4, Jerome Neyrey wrote:
Paul regularly used the followers of Jesus to confess him as Lord (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11). Here we deal with “denial,” the antonym of confession (Mayor, The Epistles of St. Jude, 72); certain people “deny our Master and our Lord.” Naturally “master” (despotēs) refers either to the head of the household, who has absolute rights over his family and slaves (2 Tim 2:21; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), or to a ruler with sovereign power, such as the Roman emperors. It was used of Greek deities and the Hebrew God, especially in terms of God’s absolute sovereignty and omnipotence (Josh 5:14; Wis 6:7; Job 5:8). Both the Greek Xenophon and the Jew Josephus remark on the reservation of the term “master” for the Deity: “To no human creature do you pay homage as master (depostēn), but to the gods alone” (An. 3.2.13; see Josephus, B.J. 7.418-19). It is striking, then, that Jesus begins to be acclaimed by a term reserved for the most powerful earthly and heavenly rulers (K. Rengstorf, “Despotēs,” TDNT 2.44-47).
In the honor/shame culture of antiquity, honor must be shown a “master,” either the head of the household or the sovereign. Honor shown an earthly master redounds to the honor of the heavenly master: “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed” (1 Tim 6:1). Shame, then, accompanies the denial of a master’s power and sovereignty. This is aptly illustrated by the treatment of David’s messengers sent to Hanum, the son of Nahash. Instead of receiving them honourably, the king of the Ammonites shaved off half their beards and cut their clothes in half, defending them home naked below the waist (2 Sam 10:4). David was thus publicly insulted by the treatment accorded his messengers. The story in 2 Sam 10 records David’s honorable avenging of this insult to his messengers. Josephus records, moreover, that many Jews faced torture rather than acclaim the Roman emperor as “master”: “Under every form of torture and laceration of body, devised for the sole object of making them acknowledge Caesar as mater (despotēn), not one submitted” (B.J. 7.417). In this case, they honored God as sole Master, for to acknowledge Caesar would compromise the exclusive honor of God.
If the scoffers in Jude are members of the church, they cannot be denying Jesus as Peter did (Mark 14:68, 70) or like certain Jerusalem Jews (Acts 3:13-14). If it is a theological situation imagined, their “denial” may be a rejection of some aspect of his honorable role and status, as the Exodus Jews denied Moses’ authority (Acts 7:35). 2 Peter interprets this very phrase in terms of denial of Jesus’ authority and power to judge, namely a denial of theodicy. The precise nature of the denial here seems impossible to specify, for Jude may simply interpret this “denial” as an honor challenge to those who claim to be Jesus’ “servants” or agents. Jesus is denied when his agents are rejected, just as the king is shamed when his messengers are maltreated (Matt 22:5-7; Mark 12:2-9). Or it could just as well be his polemical and even exaggerated interpretation of their behaviour. We find many references to faith being denied because of evil deeds or failure to act according to Jesus’ tradition (1 Tim 5:8; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:16; see 2 Clem 17:7; 1 Enoch 38:2; 45:2; 48:10). Whether theoretical or behavioral, such “denial” and shame will in turn be met with denial or judgment by Jesus through the lens of honor and shame. Ideally, group-orientated persons will honor or profess loyalty to their patrons and benefactors, while denying themselves (Luke 9:23). Living lives worthy of their calling, they will thereby confess the sovereignty of their master and his teaching. Denying their master either in confession or behaviour, they shame him. Indeed any shaming of one’s lord and master may be interpreted as denial. (Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 56-57, emphasis added)
Elsewhere, Jude denotes the Father as the only true God, which should serve to temper how to interpret v. 4:
To the only God (μόνῳ θεῷ) and Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 25, NRSV)
As Neyrey notes (Ibid., 100) such a confession parallels other texts where the person of the Father alone is said to be “true God” and other like-terms (Mark 12:32; John 5:44; 17:3; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15-16). For a discussion of such passages and more in light of biblical and Latter-day Saint theology, see, for e.g.:
