Christian Forums

 

QuoteI just also noticed the connection made between Sodom and Gomorrah and these angels... where men "went after strange flesh."  That could be a similar sense in which the "sons of God" went after the strange flesh of the "daughters of men."  Hmm.  

I hope I am not backtracking too much here, but these comments were made on something that also struck my interest, as well.
I believe that these incidences were mentioned in having the common bond, and that was rebellion.

I believe Jude is definately talking about satan and his "angels" who were rebelling against God's authority, who wanted to please themselves before serving God, our Father. Sodom and Gamorrah the same, went after the fleshly pleasures for their own selfish glory, not God's. (vs. 5-7)

He was making that connection to show how much more than that will God punish false teachers. Those false teachers claimed they owned "secret knowledge" that gave them authority. Their "knowledge" of God was "mystical" and beyond human understanding.

The nature of God is beyond all of our human understanding, but through Christ Jesus, He has revealed Himself to us. No one can comprehend God fully, with our finate human minds, and we should beware of those who claim to have all the answers, and who belittle what they do not understand. (vs. 10)

Memmy,

QuoteHe was making that connection to show how much more than that will God punish false teachers. Those false teachers claimed they owned "secret knowledge" that gave them authority. Their "knowledge" of God was "mystical" and beyond human understanding.

I agree with what you are saying.  The readers of the original letter already knew what he was referring to so he didn't have to be specific as to what the false teachers were teaching and uses some generalities.  This "secret knowledge"  is the basis of gnosticism in its many forms, which was becoming an extreme problem in many gentile congregations, which included Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, etc, and may have even had some limited penetration into the Jewish church.  However, the Jewish church, because of its strong Jewish traditions and respect for past knowledge in inspired written form, would have had a natural barrier in place to limit that intrussion and possibly even stop it before damage was done.  He uses some strictly Jewish referrences/comparrisons to what will happen to those who are causing problems churches he is writing to.  I think many commentators fail to make the connection to the gnostic beliefs that were becoming a problem in the churches because of the pagans who were being converted who were bringing these beliefs into the churches yet the churches were apparently failing to control the influences and false ideas of the converted pagans.  The Jews had trouble turning loose of their historic practices when converted and I think that is exactly what happened in many churches where the pagan/gnostic beliefs seem to have taken hold in those chruches.

And I agree with your application for today.

Wiley,
I see what you are saying and it does make a lot of sence. just learning from you all so carry on.

My study application Bible is really such a blessing to helping me understand from what custom, tradition etc, comes.

Wiley, Lee, and many others, I thank you as well, for bringing these traditions and things of that day, up to help us all learn where we are, or are not, to apply them for today.

Now another question that I hope does not get us off topic.

Does this allow us to see how different each church was, speaking of the one that started in the Jewish tradition, the Gentile tradition, and also even the pagan traditions and all practices, and allow us to see others differences today such as the differences in all denominations, but help us to see our One true Bond that we can share, Jesus Christ, and Him crucufied, buried and risen Lord of all?

It seems to me, as long as we are not offering that we have "special knowledge" and try to prove that we have "it" while others do not have "it" as well, that we can also be known as false teachers, some with out even seeing that it is happening.

I believe this just bears light on that from what I am seeing here.

Blessings, Memmy

Is Jude the brother of Jesus or a cousin or a step brother?  Where is CD Healy?  I suppose from his and others perspective, Jude could not be the full brother of Jesus.

If my brother was Jesus and we grew up together, maybe that would influence what I wrote and what I meant?

Quote from: s1n4m1n on Thu Nov 16, 2006 - 08:13:18
So is the comment that these ungodly men were "long ago marked for condemnation" a reference to OT prophesy related to the Church? Or was it a prophesy that occured since Pentecost?

My thinking goes to the question of predestination on this one.  Were these ungodly men predestined to condemnation?  Or, is this an example of foreknowledge (non-determined)?  Their ungodliness was foreknown, therefore they were long ago marked for condemnation.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean on whether this is OT prophesy related to the Church or prophesy that occurred since Pentecost.  Could you explain further?

Quote from: s1n4m1n on Thu Nov 16, 2006 - 08:13:18Or maybe its a reference to what you posted in verse 5, 6, and 7. Not that there was a specific prophesy about these men but that if one looks as the OT one can see the end result of such behaviors.

..as in: God has long ago marked ungodly men for condemnation, whoever those ungodly men happen to be.  I think that's a possibility as well. 

Good points, Memmy and Wiley.

Quote from: zoonance on Thu Nov 16, 2006 - 17:27:02
If my brother was Jesus and we grew up together, maybe that would influence what I wrote and what I meant?

I would certainly think so.  But, notice that he didn't capitalize on his status as Jesus' brother (assuming that is the case) to draw attention to himself.

QuoteI would certainly think so.  But, notice that he didn't capitalize on his status as Jesus' brother (assuming that is the case) to draw attention to himself.

Both James and Jude did not become followers of their older Step-brother until after Jesus' ressurection when he "appeared to James" (1 Cor 15:7).  This was apparently the pivotal moment for James.  Maybe Jude was with James at that time.  We do know they were both a part of the 120 disciples in the upper room, which included their mother Mary, prior to Pentecost and took part in having the Holy Spirit fall on them on Pentecost and spoke in tongues on that day.  It is probably because of James, Jude's brother who became famous of the leader of the Jerusalem church and writer of the Book of James, that Jude makes reference to James as his brother.  Also, Jude and James both describe themselves as a followers of Christ, and do  not draw any reference to the fact that they were half brothers of jesus.  I agree with you that there was a specific reason for not capitolizing on the even half brother relationship to Jesus.  I do not believe he wanted to draw any attention at all from Jesus.

QuoteTheir ungodliness was foreknown, therefore they were long ago marked for condemnation.   

I think that is probably the case.  I don't believe there is a predestination overtone to this statement because I don't accept the idea that God specifically predestinated a given human to be lost.  That would go against the idea of God letting us make our own decissions as to whether to accept him or not and it would also violate the idea that God does not want anyone to be lost but knows that many will be lost by their own choices.

Great comments.

(See, this is the kind of thread I want to see more of on this forum.  Serious study instead of just going back and forth with our antagonists trying to prove our positions like a tennis match.)

Quote
Their ungodliness was foreknown, therefore they were long ago marked for condemnation.   

I think that is probably the case.  I don't believe there is a predestination overtone to this statement because I don't accept the idea that God specifically predestinated a given human to be lost.  That would go against the idea of God letting us make our own decissions as to whether to accept him or not and it would also violate the idea that God does not want anyone to be lost but knows that many will be lost by their own choices.


I agree. BUT. This does illustrate the difficulty of letting Jude speak without our previous convictions doing the explaining for us.  (Hope you understand what I mean)  The original audience may or may not have understood either!  We assume they did.  Why do we assume that?  Because otherwise we have little to stand on at all!  Others will no doubt disagree mightily with you on this!  (Using the same reasoning, albeit opposite)   Sorry, didn't mean to derail anything on a great bible study. 

Quote from: zoonance on Fri Nov 17, 2006 - 13:10:06This does illustrate the difficulty of letting Jude speak without our previous convictions doing the explaining for us.  (Hope you understand what I mean) 

I do understand and agree.  When faced with a scripture where a possible interpretation goes against the way we see things, it's only natural to look for an interpretation that complies with our views more and reject the interpretation that makes us uncomfortable.

DCR,

QuoteSerious study instead of just going back and forth with our antagonists   

Side note of interest that I picked up from a commentary...

The name "Jude" is "Judas" (ioudaV) in the Greek.  But, the English translators used the name "Jude" in order to avoid confusion with the infamous Judas Iscariot.  The name originates from the name "Judah" in the Hebrew OT.

Notice how there are people named "Judah" and "Jude"... but, it's a rare person who is named "Judas"?  These are all variations of the same  name.  "Judas" just happens to be the Greek form of the name, which is most closely identified with the one who betrayed Jesus.

A while back, our preacher was talking about names and what we tend to associate them with.  He pointed out that most parents wouldn't think of naming their child "Judas" because of the association with Judas Iscariot.  "Judas" has basically become a cliche that we use to refer to a traitor.

Some good deep thoughts are being presented here..Bible study with a good facilitater like DCR is helping us to eat the meat instead of drinking milk...

God bless,Peck

Thanks, peck.

If not today, then hopefully tomorrow (whenever I can get around to it), we'll proceed to the next few verses (Lord willing).

Quote from: DCR on Fri Nov 17, 2006 - 07:11:46

Quote from: s1n4m1n on Thu Nov 16, 2006 - 08:13:18
So is the comment that these ungodly men were "long ago marked for condemnation" a reference to OT prophesy related to the Church? Or was it a prophesy that occured since Pentecost?

My thinking goes to the question of predestination on this one.  Were these ungodly men predestined to condemnation?  Or, is this an example of foreknowledge (non-determined)?  Their ungodliness was foreknown, therefore they were long ago marked for condemnation.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean on whether this is OT prophesy related to the Church or prophesy that occurred since Pentecost.  Could you explain further?

I think that much of the OT speaks of the Church whether thru foreshadowing, allegory, allusions, or outright prophesy. I was just wondering if there were any direct prophesies in the OT related to ungodly men distrupting the Church. IOW, this teaching from Jude had to come from somewhere whether NT revelation or interpretation of OT.

Ken

Quote from: s1n4m1n on Sun Nov 19, 2006 - 14:36:33

Quote from: DCR on Fri Nov 17, 2006 - 07:11:46

Quote from: s1n4m1n on Thu Nov 16, 2006 - 08:13:18
So is the comment that these ungodly men were "long ago marked for condemnation" a reference to OT prophesy related to the Church? Or was it a prophesy that occured since Pentecost?

My thinking goes to the question of predestination on this one.  Were these ungodly men predestined to condemnation?  Or, is this an example of foreknowledge (non-determined)?  Their ungodliness was foreknown, therefore they were long ago marked for condemnation.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean on whether this is OT prophesy related to the Church or prophesy that occurred since Pentecost.  Could you explain further?

I think that much of the OT speaks of the Church whether thru foreshadowing, allegory, allusions, or outright prophesy. I was just wondering if there were any direct prophesies in the OT related to ungodly men distrupting the Church. IOW, this teaching from Jude had to come from somewhere whether NT revelation or interpretation of OT.

Ken

As was pointed out by someone earlier, there is an apparent connection between Jude and 2 Peter.  This is evident when you read 2 Peter 2.  In fact, leading up to that, the latter part of 2 Peter 1 is interesting in that context...

Quote¹⁶For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  ¹⁷For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- ¹⁸and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
¹⁹So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.  ²⁰But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, ²¹for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Earlier in that chapter (verse 14), Peter wrote that "the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent" (presumably his death?) "as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me."  So, we are apparently to infer that Christ Himself revealed to Peter that Peter's death was imminent.  That led to his little discussion on the prophetic word in the verses quoted above, which also set the stage for what we read in chapter 2...

Quote¹But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.  ²Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; ³and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Sound familiar?  It should; that's basically what we have been reading in Jude (1:4)... except that in 2 Peter 2, it is stated in the future tense (as in these things will happen).  In Jude, it is stated in more of a past tense (as in these things have already happened).  So, perhaps, assuming we're not making too much of it, Peter prophesied it at an earlier time, and Jude is writing at a later time, stating that these things have come to pass?  At any rate, if this did come by word of prophecy to Peter and/or the other apostles, then we might infer that it was known to God long beforehand (as in the false teachers were "long beforehand marked out for this condemnation," as Jude wrote and who were the subject of "judgment from long ago," as Peter wrote).

I haven't forgotten about this.  The last couple of days have just been really busy with work.  But, now I am off for the rest of the week. 

Where you left off, with the connection to 2 Peter, do you see any connection of that to the "man of lawlessness" in 2 Thess?  The MoL was prophesied to set himself up in the Temple of God, but I'm not sure it was intended to be the physical temple in Jerusalem.  By the writing of 2 Thess, the Temple in Paul's writings had always referred to the Church.  So you have someone setting himself up for shop in the Church.  Any link, you think?

Very interesting point, jmg.

I don't know why that possibility didn't cross my mind, considering we've been studying 1 & 2 Thessalonians in our Sunday morning classes and were discussing that passage only a couple of weeks ago.  We have other passages that refer to the spirit of the antiChrist as well.  Are these passages all referring to the same apostasy or different things at different times?  I suspect there is so much we don't know.  Many of these kinds of prophecies in the New Testament seemed imminent to the times.  I have to suspect that they referred to events, movements, and people that lived in the first century.  Of course, I could be wrong.

Well, I do think the antichrist and MoL are different.  I think so because the antichrist(s) are plural, present and active at the time, and we know what they were denying.  The MoL, on the other hand was being held back, was singular (in person, or in capacity?) and would be around at the coming of Christ (which leads me to think it is a singular "office" or "position", not a single man).  Does that make sense?

I also tend to think that the "antiChrists" in the context of John's epistles were different from the man of lawlessness.  If this is some position of power and not necessarily a specific person, then could this have existed in the first century (or the roots of it anyway), and still continue to this day (until the coming of Christ)?  If so, then we now have to ask the equally unsettling question of who or what it refers to.

Just as an aside, those who subscribe to the Preterist position believe that Jesus made some sort of return in the year A.D. 70 (to coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem).  And, some of these passages may refer to that, according to them.  If that is the case, then this could have been over and done with in the first century... or maybe not.

As you can see, I have more questions than I do answers.

I didn't have time to get in on this, but it looks interesting.  I'll try to catchup when you get to Jude chapter 2.

Quote from: marc on Tue Nov 21, 2006 - 21:22:53Jude chapter 2.

You must be aware of some other manuscripts that apparently didn't make it into the canon. 

Quote from: DCR on Tue Nov 21, 2006 - 21:19:23
I also tend to think that the "antiChrists" in the context of John's epistles were different from the man of lawlessness.  If this is some position of power and not necessarily a specific person, then could this have existed in the first century (or the roots of it anyway), and still continue to this day (until the coming of Christ)?  If so, then we now have to ask the equally unsettling question of who or what it refers to.

Just as an aside, those who subscribe to the Preterist position believe that Jesus made some sort of return in the year A.D. 70 (to coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem).  And, some of these passages may refer to that, according to them.  If that is the case, then this could have been over and done with in the first century... or maybe not.

As you can see, I have more questions than I do answers.

As do I.  I don't find much stock in the preterists' arguments.  I think the Temple refers to the Church since that was the general usage by the time of the prophecy.  I also think that Paul would not have mixed usages of "Christ's coming" between 1 & 2 Thess.  But you're right, it does raise some unsettling questions.  And I think that's why we generally avoid these passages in Jude, 2 Peter and 2 Thess (and Rev.).

Notice how Paul indicates in 2 Thessalonians 2:5 that he apparently discussed the "man of lawlessness" with them when he was last with them.  I wonder what all he told them?  Probably more than is actually recorded here, I'm guessing.  I suppose this was a revelation that was given to Paul.

Not so long ago this materialistic society was saying that human nature was getting better, and since it has been improved, we don't need all of our laws; so the lid was taken off. We have found that it isn't as rosy as believed but is more like the manure surrounding the rose. Vile and unspeakable crimes have been committed; unbelievable immorality has taken place and the church has not been exempt. The question is being asked, "Where does all this vileness and evil come from?

And, this is a good segue to the next verse:

QuoteJude 1:8
Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.

First of all, what is meant by "dreaming," or as most versions have it, "these dreamers"?  It is thought, in some commentaries, that some of these false teachers were claiming revelations from visions and/or dreams.  These people were apparently rejecting the authority of God and the Apostles.  This may be in line with what Paul once warned to the elders of church at Ephesus:

Acts 20
²⁹"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; ³⁰and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

I've consulted some more commentaries.  It is the thought of some that "reviling angelic majesties" may refer to some of the beliefs that false teachers of the day, such as some of the Gnostics and Docetists, may have been teaching with regard to legends about angelic beings (Demiurgic angels, in particular).  So, an indepth study of these things might be helpful.  But, I'm not going to do that here.  But, basically, there were groups that were teaching an alternate history of God and creation... including the background of angels and some heretical and blasphemous things about Jehovah in the Old Testament (they tried to say that Jehovah and the God of the New Testament were not the same, and that Christ represented the true God and came to rescue man from the Demiurge Jehovah... this is admittedly very weird stuff.).  For more on that, go here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04707b.htm.

These folks are dreamers, and they have gotten into the church and have used the church of the Lord Jesus Christ they live in an unreal world, a world that does not exist.

My feeling is that the theological idealist does not deal with reality. These idealists's are rather romantic. Their ideas and programs sound good on paper and are received well by the masses. It is nice to be able to solve all your problems by positive thinking, but there is far more power in thinking realistically and within the precepts of truth. However this type of thinking is seldom received well. Today we need to learn how to say no as well as how to say yes. These dreamers are freethinkers in the sense that they will not acknowledge reality (truth). Today, as at the time of Jude's writing, these dreamers do not acknowledge the deity of Christ. They believe that they will find satisfaction through their dreams, schemes & unrealistic thinking. We don't have to look far to find these dreamers.

Good thinking going on....Jude seems to be attacking human dreamers as people who do not realize that they are really messing around with celestial beings and need to come down to earth where us humans dwell...

God bless,Peck

next verse...

QuoteJude 1:9
But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

So, from where does this little bit of information that Jude alludes to originate?  It doesn't appear to be found in any other Scripture.  So, we can either surmise that something was revealed to Jude or that this was a story that was passed down through oral tradition.  This is one of the few references to the archangel Michael in Scripture.  The other passages where he is mentioned are in Daniel (Dan 10:13, 21; Dan 12:1) and Revelation (Rev 12:7).  In Daniel, he is described as a "chief prince" who went up against the kingdom of Persia in Daniel's vision.  In Revelation, it is said that a war breaks out in heaven, where Michael and his angels fight against Satan and his angels.

The reference to Michael arguing with the devil over the body of Moses is thought by some to come from another apocryphal writing called The Assumption of Moses.  But, there is also a school of thought that says that this may be an allusion to Zechariah 3:2, where the phrase "The LORD rebuke you" is found.  There, the angel of the LORD is said to be contending with Satan over the high priest Joshua.  There was apparently an issue with Joshua wearing filthy garments in Zechariah's vision.  So, there are some similarities with this.

I may expand on this a little more later.  But, that's enough information for now to begin addressing this verse.

 This passage goes against human reasoning...Whether it actually happened or just a quote from another ancient writing is probably not within our ability to distinquish...

But I wonder what thoughts are conveyed by Jude making this assertion.....Is satan so powerful that he brings fear to the top dog in God's army...Is satan so powerful that only Jesus can handle him...Being an angel and a celestial being himself,I wonder why he claimed satan as a celestial being that was not to be messed around with...and didn't claim that power for himself..Was the devil more powerful than Michael..Did Jude give us actual facts about how powerful celestial beings are and when we join forces with them,we need to be careful to not slander them(whatever that means)..whether they are holy or evil..celestial beings are to be respected...Moses got in trouble for disrespecting a holy celestial being...These people who were acting like the celestial being of satan but claiming to be a part of the celestial being of God were a danger to the faith of the body of Christ..The devil may try to claim their souls and Jesus is the only celestial being that can save them..Michael can't...Just maybe Jude is saying that we should defend the truth of God and call these ungodly people to repentance...That way,Jesus can rebuke the devil that's trying to get their souls..

Just some thoughts from a long time ago when I did an extensive study on the Spirit world..Just perception from different scriptures in the old and new testaments and only what the bible means to me...I believe that DCR is coming into the verses that may help us to understand how we as christians may also slander celestial beings...sorry for the long post

Good job DCR

God bless,Peck