A.Jude 1:3-8 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. But I
want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having
saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those
who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their proper
domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting
chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and
Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these,
having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after
strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance
of eternal fire. Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh,
reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
1.Desire to expound vs. necessity to warn.
2.Last session: brief historical survey of
doctrinal error and its implications.
3.Jude now turns to describe the modus
operandi, or “methods of operation” which characterize the
agents of Satan as they work to undermine God’s purposes.
II.Comparison by Example
A.Israel’s refusal to enter the Promised Land.
B.Angels in heaven who left their proper domain.
C.Sodom and Gomorrah.
D.Ungodly men turning grace into lewdness.
1.Jude 1:8 – Likewise also these dreamers: 1)
defile the flesh; 2) reject authority; 3) speak evil.
2.It is by means of their fantasizing
that they are led to defile the flesh.
a)Their acts which defile the flesh, as serious
as they may be, are merely the physical manifestation of their a
deep-seated internal rejection of authority—especially the ultimate
Authority: God Himself.
b)This rejection is rooted in deluded mental
imaginings or fantasies which
refuse to acknowledge the obvious boundaries which God has placed
within the created order.
E.Stages of departure from God
1.At one time they lived within God’s
established boundaries and purpose.
C.Hebrews 3:7-12 Therefore, as the Holy
Spirit says: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden
your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the
wilderness, Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works
forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said,
'They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known
My ways.' So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest.'"
Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of
unbelief in departing from the living God;
D.Hebrews 3:18-19 And to whom did He swear
that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
1.Belief is much more than accepting God's
provision for sin.
2.Belief includes trusting in and obeying all
that God has revealed.
3.Hebrews 4:2 For indeed the gospel was
preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did
not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
E.This generation had seen all God's miraculous
works in Egypt first-hand, yet they still refused to fulfill His
design to enter the promised land.
F.“Seeing” is not “believing” as many
hold. Belief is an issue of the heart which is predicated upon a deep
trust and desire to be obedient.
G.What should have been a journey of mere days
turned into a 40 year wandering in the wilderness.
IV.Angels which Departed
A.Did not keep their proper domain . . . left
their own abode (Jude 1:6)
B.Having given themselves over to sexual
immorality and gone after strange flesh (Jude 1:7).
C.Sodom and Gomorrah and cities around them
compared to these (the angels who also went after strange
1.Strange flesh is sarko;"
eJtevra" [sarkos heteras] , another
[different] kind of flesh. The flesh was not allos (similar),
but heteros (different). This seems to point to the event prior to
the flood when certain angels went after flesh of a different kind:
"There were giants on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and
they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of
old, men of renown" (Ge 6:4).
2.Some suggest that the these in Jude's
passage refers to Sodom and Gomorrah--that the cities in a similar
manner to Sodom and Gomorrah went after strange flesh. But the gender
of the grammar indicates that these (masculine plural) refers
back to the angels (masculine plural). Sodom and Gomorrah and the
cities around them gave themselves over to sexual immorality and went
after strange flesh in a similar manner to the angels. The
actions of the inhabitants of the cities is compared to that of the
angels which preceded.
3.Jude tells us that they did not keep their
"proper domain," ajrch
[arch] , meaning: "rule, office, domain,
sphere of influence."
4.The idea is that certain angels acted
improperly, going outside the bounds prescribed by God. The
bounds which they exceeded involved their interaction with strange
flesh--mingling with the daughters of men.
a)The details of how this occurred, whether by
direct involvement or possession, are not provided.
5.Because of this grievous sin, they are
"reserved in everlasting chains under darkness." Darkness
[zophon], which denotes "especially the darkness of the
nether regions and these regions themselves."
6.As difficult and reprehensible as it is to
accept the events of Genesis 6 at face value, we have no convincing
a)The grammar construction of the passage is
b)There is no viable way to make sense of related
passages which also refer to this event (1Pe. 3:19-20; 2Pe 2:4-6).
c)Jude and Peter reveal that whatever the act of
these angels, it led to an unprecedented angelic judgment and
restriction upon their activities. Whatever they did, it apparently
exceeds the malevolent actions of other fallen angels and demons who
yet freely roam the created
7.The point: serious violations of God's design
in creation bring fearful and certain judgment.
a)These angels were originally in the presence of
b)Yet something within caused them to turn away
from all that is good to incomprehensible evil.
c)This evil manifested itself as a rebellious
perversion of God's created order.
d)Now, in their bondage, they continue to serve
God's inscrutable purposes—but with far fewer degrees of freedom.
(This is the destination of all licentious rebellion against God:
bondage, not freedom.)
V.Sodom and Gomorrah
A.Compared to the angels who departed.
1.Like the angels before them, they gave
themselves over to immorality.
2.Like the angels before them, they too went
after strange flesh.
hardly necessary to comment on the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as they
once were embedded in the laws of the land: e.g., the previously
outlawed practice referred to as sodomy.4
13:13 But the men of
Sodom were exceedingly
wicked and sinful against the LORD.
19:4-5 Now before they
lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young,
all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they
called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to
you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
1:24-28 Therefore God
also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to
dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of
God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than
the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave
them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural
use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men
with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the
penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like
to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things
which are not fitting;
d)These men Jude warns against are similar to
those that Paul describes:
(1)walking according to their own lusts (Jude
(2)sensual persons (Jude 1:18)
4.God's catastrophic judgment of Sodom and
Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24-28) thereafter serves as a standard of
comparison for especially ungodly acts throughout the Bible (Deu.
29:23; Deu. 32:32; Isa. 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:18; Jer.
50:40; Lam. 4:6; Eze. 16:46-56; Amos 4:11; Zep. 2:9; Mtt. 10:15;
11:23-24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Rom. 9:29; 2Pe. 2:6; Rev.
a)2 Peter 2:6
. . turning the cities
of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them
to destruction, making them
an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
A.An apparent embracing of God’s will,
but an eventual flowering of rebellion resulting in departure and
opposition to all that is God.
B.Chain of Departure: four spheres where God's
design is rejected. Individual → family → Church → society.
a)This is where it all begins—without our own
b)This is why the primary calling of the Church
is that of proclaiming God's truth with the focus on a ministry of
repentance and reconciliation with God.
c)The Biblical model of societal reform begins
with me and you, in the privacy of our own hearts.
d)Will we seek to understand God's design
for our lives as revealed in His Word?
e)Will we obey what we find therein—even
when it clashes with our own notions?
a)Fathers who refuse to walk in God's design:
(1)Provide a leadership role in the home.
(2)Establish and maintain a safe haven for their
wife and children.
(3)Provide for the physical, emotional, and
spiritual needs of the family.
b)Mothers who refuse to occupy their God-given
(1)Vie with their husband for headship within the
(2)Deny their supportive role as nurturing care
givers within the family.
c)Marriage Partners who:
(1)Fracture God's design for marriage resulting
in the loss of the nurturing environment within which God intends for
children to be raised.
(2)Distort the children's understanding of
unconditional love of God which family relations are intended to
3.Church – many examples could be given.
(1)Departure from God's design that men lead the
Church (e.g., 1Ti. 2:12).
(2)Departure from God's created sexual order.
a)Much could be said about the widespread
rejection of God's design in society: all the way from feminism to a
refusal to discipline children to rampant sexual promiscuity.5
(1)Recent news article:
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in early October, I
found myself caught in a crossfire. Across Independence Avenue stood
a handful of Christians carrying placards encouraging the museum's
visitors to forego the evolutionary leanings of Darwin. On the steps
of the museum stood an increasingly vocal crowd chanting Darwin's
name over and over. For several minutes, the two sides traded insults
and it wasn't long before the hoots and hollers reached a frightening
crescendo. At one point, two gay men stood in the middle of the
street, passionately kissing to a wave of applause.” [Emling]
(2)Why would pro-homosexual elements in society
chant “Darwin! Darwin! Darwin!”? What is the connection between
the acceptance, and even promotion of, homosexuality and evolution?
(4)Isolate homosexuals of one natural gender on
an Island—what happens after two generations? But isn't “survival
of the fittest” one of the key planks of evolutionary theory?
(5)If the notion of “survival of the fittest”
testifies against homosexuality, why are homosexuals such big fans of
(6)The answer is found in this: evolution
underwrites the rebellion against God which is behind the refusal to
remain within an individual's created sexual identity.
(a)The “just-so” fairy tale that life can be
explained as the unavoidable accident of time plus chance
conveniently disposes of the perceived need of the Creator.
(b)No design →
no designer → nopurpose → no
c)Illustration: professor who teachers bioethics
“Professor Richard Gardner of Oxford University, a
renowned expert on human reproduction and an advisor to Britain's
Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, recently raised the
prospect of using organs from aborted fetuses for transplantation
into adults. This possibility offers the potential to save or improve
the lives of the hundreds of thousands of patients in desperate need
of such organs throughout the world, especially the more than 70,000
in the United States waiting for kidneys. While such procedures have
never been attempted in humans, research on mice has demonstrated
that fetal kidneys develop quickly inside adult animals -- and
according to Gardner, fetal-to-adult transplantation is 'probably a
more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney
donors than others.' If aborted fetuses do prove a useful source of
organs for transplant, and there is hope to believe that they might,
our society may soon have to grapple with the possibility of yet
another controversial and startling -- yet potentially beneficial --
phenomenon: a legal market in fetal tissue and organs. Opponents of
organ sales fear that transforming transplantation into a financial
transaction will lead to exploitation of the poor, particularly in
developing nations, and will expose the world's least fortunate
inhabitants to unnecessary medical risks and to exchanges in which
they lack equal bargaining power. The striking benefit of a legal
trade in fetal organs, unlike adult organs, is that it may provide
all of the benefits that supporters desire without resulting in the
exploitative harms that opponents fear. Such sales could prove the
rare economic transaction in the medical field in which all
participating parties can truly be said to benefit. The first
striking feature of fetal organs is that their supply, for all
practical purposes, is unlimited. Unlike living kidney donors, who
must then advance through life with only one functioning kidney,
pregnant women who provide fetal kidneys could do so
repeatedly without incurring the medical consequences of adult organ
loss. Opponents of reproductive choice will object to such a market
on the grounds that it will increase the number of abortions -- which
will indeed be the logical result. However, such a market might
also bring solace to women who have already decided upon abortion,
but desire that some additional social good come from the procedure.
Like the families of accident victims who donate the organs of their
loved ones, these women could well find their decisions fortified by
the public benefit that they generate. Someday, if we are
fortunate, scientific research may make possible farms of artificial
'wombs' breeding fetuses for their organs -- or even the 'miracle' of
men raising fetuses in their abdomens. [Appel,
d)The monstrous steel-cold “logic” of the
angel of light!
(1)Such sales could prove the rare economic
transaction in the medical field in which all participating parties
can truly be said to benefit.
e)Heinous departure from God's design—bordering
upon the most serious examples found in the passage before us, indeed
anywhere within scripture!
f)The complete denial and overturning of God's
design for reproduction in the service of the god of humanism: SELF!
C.When will mankind irrevocably cross God's
A.How far will God allow mankind to go in the
overthrow and perversion of His design in creation?
B.When will we cross a “line in the sand,”
the unseen “trip-wire” which triggers God's fearful intervention
bringing a time of prophesied judgment unlike the world has ever seen
or ever will see?
“sons of Shem” hypothesis offered up by many as an alternative
is manifestly eisegesis.
Moreover, it completely lacks explanatory power given the context of
Genesis 6 and related passages. The problem here is the very topic
of Jude: unbelief
coupled with a refusal to take the Word of God at face value
concerning this admittedly difficult teaching.
gender of the complete passage shows unambiguously that it was the
Angels who participated in
the fleshly act: "And the [angels (masculine plural)]
who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He
has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment
of the great day; as [Sodom (neuter plural)] and [Gomorrah (feminine
singular)], and the [cities (feminine plural)] around them in a
similar manner to [these (masculine plural)], [having given
themselves over to sexual immorality (feminine plural)] and [gone
after (feminine plural)] strange flesh, are set forth as an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1:6-7). Greek
scholar Kenneth Wuest concurs: 'The words “in like manner,” are
associated grammatically, not with the words “Sodom” and
“Gomorrah” and “the cities,” which are in the nominative
case, but with the two verbal forms, the participles “giving
themselves over to fornication” and “going after strange flesh.”
A word in the accusative case in Greek is not associated
grammatically with the word in the nominative case, but the verb. .
. . Now to what do the words “in like manner,” refer? The text,
punctuated as we have just indicated, would refer the words to the
angels of verse 6. That is, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about
them, in like manner to the angels, committed fornication. And that
is correct. but the Greek text gives us further help. The
demonstrative pronoun τούτοις
appears immediately after the words “in like
manner.” . . . That is, those cities gave themselves over to
fornication in like manner to these, namely, the angels. Thus we
have a clear statement in the Greek text that angels committed
fornication and went after strange flesh. One such statement in
the Word of God is enough to establish the fact. . . . One will
have to accept the fact to the angels committing fornication,
repugnant and unexplainable as it is, or reject the verbal
inspiration of the New Testament and the rules of Greek syntax.'
wonders how long the long-held definitions for this word will remain
unaltered in the dictionaries of our land before capitulating to the
forces of political correctness: “Sodom;
fr. the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen
19:1–11 . . . anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or
opposite sex also: copulation with an
Notice how the definition of sodomy is irrespective of homosexual or
heterosexual relations in that it properly designates the violation
of God's design for the body
in either case.
for My people, children are their oppressors, and women
rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to
err, And destroy the way of your paths (Isa. 3:12).