What do you think?
Rate this book
The NIV Application Commentary, New Testament #16
2 Peter, Jude
The NIV Application Commentary helps you communicate and apply biblical text effectively in today's context.
To bring the ancient messages of the Bible into today's world, each passage is treated in three
Original Meaning. Concise exegesis to help readers understand the original meaning of the biblical text in its historical, literary, and cultural context.
Bridging Contexts. A bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of today, built by discerning what is timeless in the timely pages of the Bible.
Contemporary Significance. This section identifies comparable situations to those faced in the Bible and explores relevant application of the biblical messages. The author alerts the readers of problems they may encounter when seeking to apply the passage and helps them think through the issues involved.
This unique, award-winning commentary is the ideal resource for today's preachers, teachers, and serious students of the Bible, giving them the tools, ideas, and insights they need to communicate God's Word with the same powerful impact it had when it was first written.
To bring the ancient messages of the Bible into today's world, each passage is treated in three
Original Meaning. Concise exegesis to help readers understand the original meaning of the biblical text in its historical, literary, and cultural context.
Bridging Contexts. A bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of today, built by discerning what is timeless in the timely pages of the Bible.
Contemporary Significance. This section identifies comparable situations to those faced in the Bible and explores relevant application of the biblical messages. The author alerts the readers of problems they may encounter when seeking to apply the passage and helps them think through the issues involved.
This unique, award-winning commentary is the ideal resource for today's preachers, teachers, and serious students of the Bible, giving them the tools, ideas, and insights they need to communicate God's Word with the same powerful impact it had when it was first written.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published December 17, 1996
73 people are currently reading
129 people want to read
About the author
Douglas J. Moo
101 books88 followersDouglas J. Moo (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is Kenneth T. Wessner Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois. He is the author of commentaries on Romans, James, 2 Peter and Jude, and Colossians and Philemon and coauthor of An Introduction to the New Testament. He also headed the committee on Bible translation for the NIV revision.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 3, 2026
I really wish I could give this a 5 star, it truly is a wonderful commentary, but I do have some disagreements with Moo on whether or not we can read Jude as a full throttle Trinitarian document and strong affirmation of Christ' divinity. It's a great commentary, but I think Moo (and many scholars today) underestimate how prevalent the idea of plurality within the Godhead was in Judaism at this time. To share what will eventually end up in an article.
Speaks of both Jude & the early Christians as "rigidly monotheistic (Jude, v.1-2)." Now I disagree with Moo on his thought that the divinity of Christ would be a challenge to this rigid Monotheism, or that Jude didn't understand the doctrine of the Trinity (at least in the sense of plurality within the Godhead) as the ancients Jews did have teachings on plurality within the Godhead. And by the time Jude is written figures like Paul were clearly expressing it, which Jude is familiar with. Noting that Jude is "rigidly monotheistic" in the sense Moo is implying (perhaps in the direction of a more Unitarian understanding which wasn't the only or even dominant view of the ancient Jews) would yield a response more like that of the Pharisees who understood Jesus was claming to be God when they wished to condemn Him for "making himself equal" with Yahweh (Jn 10.33). This shows 1 - they rejected His claim to divinity, and 2 - they understood He was making a claim to divinity. That carries the implication, they had some frame for understanding what the claim "I and the Father are one" meant. If it was the type of "rigid monotheism" some suggests, rather than what the historical evidence as seen in the writings of Philo or the Targums suggests alongside the writings of the OT itself, they would have no frame of reference to understand such a claim as a claim to equality with God and being divine Himself. The constant picture of John is not that the claims of Christ as the Divine Son of God are unclear, but that the pharisees continually reject it showing they understood it, and if they understood the the followers of Jesus surely understood at least some of these claims and still followed him though they were "rigid monotheist." Moo himself notes this early NT witness in Matthew, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews showing Christ being worshiped, called Yahweh, and being prayed to, things that belong to Yahweh alone (ibid). Jude himself pulls on explicitly divine prerogatives, not just in this title but also in the reference to Christ being the one to keep us, something of which the OT describes of being done by God alone. Moo himself even notes the continuation of that teaching in the NT which we see in 1 Pt 1.5; 1 Jn; and Rom 8.39, so the implications here in Jude's short epistle are as outstanding as any other NT writing, and should be read as such. Jude is clearly writing with the assumption his audience is familiar with Scripture, both the OT and the NT, and would be writing with the understanding his audience would be aware of these things. Moo also notes towards the end of his commentary on v.21 the presence of of two, "early Christian triads... faith, love, and hope; and Father, Son, and holy Spirit." Another indicator Jude is very much aware, and in line, with other early NT teachings.
Speaks of both Jude & the early Christians as "rigidly monotheistic (Jude, v.1-2)." Now I disagree with Moo on his thought that the divinity of Christ would be a challenge to this rigid Monotheism, or that Jude didn't understand the doctrine of the Trinity (at least in the sense of plurality within the Godhead) as the ancients Jews did have teachings on plurality within the Godhead. And by the time Jude is written figures like Paul were clearly expressing it, which Jude is familiar with. Noting that Jude is "rigidly monotheistic" in the sense Moo is implying (perhaps in the direction of a more Unitarian understanding which wasn't the only or even dominant view of the ancient Jews) would yield a response more like that of the Pharisees who understood Jesus was claming to be God when they wished to condemn Him for "making himself equal" with Yahweh (Jn 10.33). This shows 1 - they rejected His claim to divinity, and 2 - they understood He was making a claim to divinity. That carries the implication, they had some frame for understanding what the claim "I and the Father are one" meant. If it was the type of "rigid monotheism" some suggests, rather than what the historical evidence as seen in the writings of Philo or the Targums suggests alongside the writings of the OT itself, they would have no frame of reference to understand such a claim as a claim to equality with God and being divine Himself. The constant picture of John is not that the claims of Christ as the Divine Son of God are unclear, but that the pharisees continually reject it showing they understood it, and if they understood the the followers of Jesus surely understood at least some of these claims and still followed him though they were "rigid monotheist." Moo himself notes this early NT witness in Matthew, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews showing Christ being worshiped, called Yahweh, and being prayed to, things that belong to Yahweh alone (ibid). Jude himself pulls on explicitly divine prerogatives, not just in this title but also in the reference to Christ being the one to keep us, something of which the OT describes of being done by God alone. Moo himself even notes the continuation of that teaching in the NT which we see in 1 Pt 1.5; 1 Jn; and Rom 8.39, so the implications here in Jude's short epistle are as outstanding as any other NT writing, and should be read as such. Jude is clearly writing with the assumption his audience is familiar with Scripture, both the OT and the NT, and would be writing with the understanding his audience would be aware of these things. Moo also notes towards the end of his commentary on v.21 the presence of of two, "early Christian triads... faith, love, and hope; and Father, Son, and holy Spirit." Another indicator Jude is very much aware, and in line, with other early NT teachings.
February 9, 2025
This is a fantastic commentary on the neglected letters of 2 Peter and Jude. Incredibly insightful exegesis and practical application. I very successfully used this commentary as a resource for a Bible study group as we worked through these two letters from Peter and Jude.
January 8, 2021
The best commentary I read (out of 4) on these books. The exegesis is excellent along with really good application. Much fuel for worship here!
June 28, 2022
Not that applicative, for the theme is rather theologically hard in these 2 books. Quite deep and good for learning materials.
September 9, 2016
I'm more and more impressed with Douglass Moo. I really admire his honesty with Scripture.
Notes:
Personal note: “self control”. Is this an implicit argument for libertarian free will? (43)
Moo deals with the “calling” and apostasy parts of Peter by calling them “antinomy” (58). I agree that they don’t fit in a classical Calvinist framework.
Law of Christ (173)
Strong Christology in Jude
Notes:
Personal note: “self control”. Is this an implicit argument for libertarian free will? (43)
Moo deals with the “calling” and apostasy parts of Peter by calling them “antinomy” (58). I agree that they don’t fit in a classical Calvinist framework.
Law of Christ (173)
Strong Christology in Jude
April 17, 2014
Super commentary. Easy to read and full of application.
September 28, 2015
(Read 2 Peter commentary; will read Jude another time)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews