Rebellion And God’s Judgment In The Book Of Jude

By Herbert W. Bateman IV

[Herbert W. Bateman IV is an author and teacher who resides in Leesburg, Indiana.]

Jude’s short letter, tucked away at the end of the New Testament, offers a straightforward theological point frequently overlooked, yet pertinent to both his and the present time.[1] Writing with a sense of urgency (v. 3),[2] Jude tackled directly the issue of rebellion and the subsequent outcome for anyone who rebels against God. Jude’s theological concern about rebellion and its outcome compelled him throughout his letter, particularly verses 5-16. He makes it perfectly clear: Rebellion, of any kind, is not a good idea. Why? Rebellion raises divine ire.

Types Of Rebellion In Jude

Three kinds of rebellion are seen in Jude: rebellion against God’s leading, rebellion against God’s universal design, and rebellion against God’s societal norms. As Jude tackled each type of rebellion, past rebellions mirrored his contemporary situation. Jude’s remembrance of the rebellions of the wilderness generation, angels, and Gentile urbanites (vv. 5-7) reflects the current rebellion (vv. 4, 8-16) that seemed to be wreaking havoc throughout all of Judea. And though Jude identified his contemporary rebels only as “godless” (ἀσεβεῖς, v. 4),[3] “dreamers” (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, v. 8),[4] “certain people” (τινες ἄνθρωποι), or most frequently “these people” (οὗτοι),[5] it seems that they were Judean Zealots who prompted, promoted, and pursued with great tenacity a revolt against Rome.[6]

Rebellion Against God’s Leading

In the past the wilderness generation had rebelled against God’s leading (v. 5). When Jude called his readers to remember that the Lord had saved “His people out of the land of Egypt” (v. 5), Jewish readers would think of God’s having delivered Israel from Egypt through Moses (Exod. 7:1-12:42; cf. Ps. 135:8), who avoided recapture (Exod. 13:17-15:21; cf. Pss. 66:5; 78:13), provided for the needs of the people (Exod. 15:22-17:7; cf. Ps. 78:14-16), and mediated a covenant with God (Exod. 19:1-20:21; 24:1-18). Jude’s more explicit concern, however, was the wilderness generation’s second rebellion (“those who did not believe were destroyed”). Although there is no shortage of segmented rebellion during the Exodus from Egypt,[7] two extensive rebellions occurred that involved the entire community. The first occurred at the Red Sea when Pharaoh was in rapid pursuit of his recently released slaves (Exod. 14:5-7). God obviously overlooked the revolt, for He parted the sea, the people crossed the sea on dry ground (14:22), the sea destroyed Egypt’s army (14:23-28), and the Israelites were “delivered” from the Egyptians (14:29-31).[8] The second major rebellion occurred at Kadesh-barnea (Deut. 12:9-10; Josh. 21:44). After twelve men spied out the land for forty days, they returned to report their findings, but only two expressed confidence about subduing the land of Canaan (Num. 13:1-30). The others expressed great reservations, which resulted in murmering against Moses, Aaron, and God, and in making plans to elect new leaders and return to Egypt (Num. 13:31-14:4). The mutiny was rooted in disbelief in both God and His appointed leader, Moses.[9] Ten disbelieving spies turned an entire community to doubt God’s ability to deliver.[10] Thus Jude recalled the ancient testimony about the wilderness community, who were persuaded by a few to rebel against God’s leading.

In Jude’s present situation rejection of Jesus as Messiah served as his example of rebellion against God’s leading. Jude’s portrait of rebellion against Jesus as God’s appointed Messiah occurs twice in Jude. In verse 4 the godless are first portrayed as denying both the sovereignty and lordship of Jesus (“the only Master and Lord”).[11] The Zealots believed that Judeans ought to recognize God alone as king and Lord (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.6 §§ 23-25). The rejection of Jesus as Messiah manifests itself in exchanging God’s grace, which came through Jesus, for conduct that violated many forms of socially acceptable behavior (“immoral,” ἀσέλγεια, v. 4)[12] whereby they rejected authority (vv. 8, 11), slandered others (vv. 8, 10, 16), grumbled (v. 16), found fault with others (vv. 16, 19), and were greedy self-seekers (vv. 11, 16). More will be said about their immoral behavior later under the rejection of God’s societal norms.

The second example of the godless rebelling against God’s leading occurs in Jude 8, where the godless “rebel against the Lord” (κυριότητα . . . ἀθετούσιν). Whereas previously in verse 4, attention was given to the simple fact that the godless denied Jesus as God’s regal Sovereign to whom God had granted regal ruling power or lordship, in verse 8 the godless are portrayed as insubordinate.

The general assumption about verse 8 is that the noun ἡ κυριότης speaks only to the rejection of the lordship of Jesus.[13] Yet elsewhere in the New Testament to reject Jesus as Messiah is to reject God as well (1 Thess. 4:8; 1 John 1:3; 2:23, 24; 4:15; 5:1, 20). Thus Jude’s current rebels are without God (i.e., godless) and insubordinate to Jesus, who is Lord. Judean followers of Jesus were well aware of the nation’s repudiation of Jesus as Messiah during His ministry (e.g., Matt. 10:33; Luke 12:9; cf. Acts 3:11-15) as well as the dismissal of His authority (e.g. Mark 1:14-15, 12:35-37; 14:61b–64; cf. Acts 3:16-4:3). The denunciation of Jesus as Messiah in Jude 4 and 8 is reminiscent of the rebellion against God’s leading at Kadesh-barnea through Moses. Once again disbelieving Zealots (or sicarii) turned an entire nation against the one whom God had sent, while they looked for a different kind of Messiah. Not only was Jesus God’s Messiah, however, He was the Messiah who came to announce the coming of God’s kingdom (cf. Mark 1:15).[14] Some thirty plus years later the desire for a Messiah other than Jesus remained and threatened Jude’s followers of Jesus. Consequently the comparison between the past and the present is simply this: Whereas the wilderness community rebelled against God’s leading by rejecting Moses, who wanted to lead God’s people into the land of Canaan (v. 5b), Jude’s rebels rebelled against God’s leading by rejecting Jesus as Messiah (vv. 4, 8b), who came to inaugurate God’s kingdom rule.

Rebellion Against God’s Universal Design

In the past, celestial beings rebelled against God’s universal design (v. 6). When Jude called his readers to remember the angelic rebellion, his readers would have been well aware of various Jewish traditions about a previous period of time when men and women were reproducing according to God’s expressed expectations (cf. Gen. 6:1; cp. 1:28) and “sons of God” decided that they too wanted to join in the reproduction process (Gen. 6:1-4).[15] At least three Jewish sources—Jubilees, 1Q Genesis Apocryphon, and 1 Enoch—draw attention to angels who desired women, left heaven, took women for wives, procreated with women, and suffered divine punishment (e.g., 1 Enoch 6:1-4a; 7:1-6). In fact, as 1 Enoch 6-7 unfolds, it interprets and expands the celestial rebellion in Genesis 6 by first identifying the crisis (6:1-8 from Gen. 6:1-2a), then isolating the deed (7:1 from Gen. 6:2, 4b), and finally indicating the results (7:2-5 from Gen. 6:4, 7). Once again, only a few angelic beings led many astray. Yet Jude does not recount the event in the same manner as any of these sources. What Jude underscores is evident in two parallel statements.[16]

Τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν
“those who did not keep their own domain”

ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον
but those who abandoned their own place of residence

Although “the language is rather vague,”[17] the similar wording “their own domain” (τὴν ἐαυτῶν ἀρχη) and “their own residence” (ἴδιον οἰκητήριον) gives emphasis to the angelic act of leaving heaven. Granted, the noun “domain” (ἀρχή) could indicate that they were authority figures or cosmic rulers,[18] but Jude’s parallelism seems to stress that these celestial beings did not stay within their sphere of official activity, they did not maintain their rightful place of influence, or quite simply they did not remain in their proper domain. In short they left heaven (cf. 1 Enoch 12:4; 15:3).[19] Thus Jude recalled that celestial beings rebelled against God’s universal design by leaving their place in heaven.

In Jude’s present situation the audacious defamation of angels serves as Jude’s example of rebellion against God’s universal design. In verse 8 Jude portrayed the godless as slandering angels (“they blaspheme the glorious ones, δόξας . . . βλασφημοῦσιν). The concept of blasphemy has the general sense of defaming another person, an angelic being, or God with abusive language.[20] Thus the godless malign angelic beings. Although δόξας could refer to human dignitaries,[21] during the latter part of the second temple period (ca. 164 BC–AD 70) the Hebrew equivalent נכבדים was associated with angelic beings.[22] Although the lexical evidence is scanty, it seems Jude’s context favors “glorious ones” (δόξας) to be angelic beings. Humans daring to criticize angels evidence rejection of God’s established cosmic boundaries. The content of the slander remains open for interpretation because Jude is unclear on this point.[23] What is clear, however, is that the godless malign angels when even an angel like Michael the archangel restrained himself from doing so against a fellow angel, Satan (v. 9; cf. 2 Pet. 2:10).[24]

Consequently the comparison between the past and the present is this: Whereas angels left heaven to engage in earthly affairs (v. 6a), the godless interjected from earth criticism about heavenly affairs (v. 8c). Jude views both as unacceptable forms of rebellion against God’s universal design.

Rebellion Against God’s Societal Norms

In the past Sodom and Gomorrah rebelled against God’s societal norms (v. 7). When Jude called his readers to remember the rebellion of Sodom and Gomorrah, his readers would have been aware of various Jewish traditions circulating about the rebellion and the fact that Jewish retellings of the event expanded Sodom’s sin to include far more than sexual misconduct.[25] The portion of Sodom and Gomorrah’s rebellion that Jude underscores is seen in two parallel statements:

Τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι
who practiced immorality in the same way as these

καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸß ἑτέρας,
and who went after different flesh

Unfortunately these two clauses are a bit baffling. Of all the New Testament authors Jude alone uses ἐκπορνεύω for “immorality.” The forty-four Septuagint occurrences of the verb point to various sorts of sexual sins: premarital sex, whoredom or perhaps adultery, sexual orgies, cultic prostitution, and marriage to a non-Jew; as well as figuratively describing Judah’s national whoredom in their worship of idols, or just a general form of lusting after things.[26] Thus “immorality” (ἐκπορνεύω) takes into consideration many possible forms of sexual misconduct. Another challenge is the phrase “in the same way as these” (ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις). The phrase probably refers back to Sodom and Gomorrah.[27] An interpretive paraphrase would be “the cities practiced immoral sexual relations like Sodom and Gomorrah.” Accordingly the negative behavior of two cities influenced other nearby urban centers to ignore God’s societal norms by promoting a “free-sex” society. Jude defined this type of free-sex society when he wrote that these Gentile urbanites “went after different flesh” (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρᾶς). The word “different” (ἑτέρας) generally means another of a different kind, “flesh” (σαρκὸς) tends to speak of “a person” or “a living being.”[28] Consequently rather than sleeping with their wives (spouses), flesh of their flesh (Gen. 2:23; cf. Eph. 5:28-31), they went after “different flesh” and thereby practiced forms of sexual whoredom that span activities such as marriage to foreign women, premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, orgies, cultic prostitution, and homosexuality. Jude’s portrayal of sexual promiscuity (“immorality,” ἐκπορνεύω) involved sex with anyone other than one’s spouse (“different flesh,” σαρκὸς ἑτέρας). As Green put it, sexual misconduct is “the vehicle by which they had violated the order established by God.”[29] These Gentile urban centers had violated God’s societal norm pertaining to the marital relationship between a husband and a wife.

In Jude’s present situation the rejection of religious piety (v. 8a), as well as unrestrained and self-indulgent behavior of the godless (vv. 4, 10, 11), serves as Jude’s example of rebellion against God’s societal norm. First, Jude portrayed his contemporary rebels as people who “defile the flesh” (σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν, v. 8), a phrase that alludes to the Jewish concept of purity. Unfortunately the twenty-first-century interpreter tends to limit the concept of “purity” to “sexual purity.”[30] Jude’s allusion to purity, however, has to do with the Jewish concept of religious purity. This is not to suggest that sexual immorality was not a concern in Judea (e.g., Antipas and Herodias, Mark 6:14-18). Rather, for the Judeans of Jude’s era and speaking very broadly, religious contamination may be segregated into one of three categories: (1) contact with unclean things such as a dead body or entering into the home of a Gentile,[31] (2) improper worship such as idolatry or disbelief in God’s leading,[32] and (3) moral misconduct such as bitterness, language, murder, sexual misconduct.[33] Jude’s explicit description of the godless throughout his letter (vv. 4, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19) suggests that this religious contamination occurred by way of disbelief in Jesus as Messiah (vv. 4, 8b) and moral misconduct by way of language (vv. 8, 10, 16, 19), bitterness (vv. 11, 16, 19), murder, and sexual misconduct (v. 8). Yet Jude’s center of attention, which closely relates to this broader religious contamination, is covered in his next example about the godless.

The second example of the godless rebelling against God’s societal norms is given in verses 4, 10, and 11. In verse 4 the portrait Jude paints begins with a broad depiction of the godless, who violated many forms of social behavior (“immoral,” ἀσέλγεια) in that they rejected authority (vv. 8, 11), they slandered others (vv. 8, 10, 16), grumbled (v. 16), found fault with others (vv. 16, 19), and ultimately were greedy self-seekers (vv. 11, 16). In verse 10, however, the details of Jude’s portrait are more focused in that Jude explicitly depicted them as stupid as well as irrational. Whereas Jude first exposed the godless as bold slanderers of angels (v. 8c), he now painted them as slanderers of everything (“they slander whatever they do not understand,” ὅσα . . . οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, v. 10).[34] Both statements, the one in verse 8 and here in verse 10, are in stark contrast to Michael (v. 9). Whereas Jude admired Michael for not acting rashly in pronouncing judgments on Satan (“he did not act rashly to bring a verbally abusive judgment against Satan,” οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας), Jude ridiculed the godless for spinning unlimited destructive criticism as a sign of their stupidity (“no understanding,” οὐκ οἴδασιν, v. 10).[35]

Jude escalated his accusation when he further painted the godless as people who followed animal instincts (ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα)[36] and who thereby were in the process of “corrupting themselves” (φθείρονται).[37] “The accusation that someone acts out of one’s irrational nature as an animal,” according to Green, “was part of vituperation (Philo, Embassy 19-20 §§ 131-32), which Jude’s pen pours out as a concrete accusation.”[38] Zealots incited Judeans to revolt, intimidated Judeans who refused, and executed irrational acts of violence against all who submitted to Roman rule (Josephus, The Jewish Wars 2.8.1, 3 §§ 117-18, 254). Thus in verse 10, Jude first ridicules the godless for their speech and then insults them for acting impulsively or rashly (= irrationally; cf. 9b) like animals. Both are contrary to God’s societal norm.

Finally in verse 11, the details of Jude’s portrait are once again very focused. Jude depicted his contemporary rebels as discontented people. Shrouded in a typological association with people of the past, namely, Cain, Balaam, and Korah, Jude essentially depicted the godless as greedy. They followed the way of Cain, whose greed manifested itself in self-gratification at the expense of others. “Clearly,” as Green rightly concludes, “the Cain story became an interpretive space that longed to be filled.”[39] Consequently and quite unlike the biblical and extrabiblical sources, Jude provided no specifics about Cain’s waywardness. In comparing the godless with Cain, Jude merely said, “They have gone [ἐπορεύθησαν] the way of Cain” (τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν). Nevertheless Jude tended to move from one subject matter to another in groups of three (e.g., three past rebellions in vv. 5-7 and three types of blasphemy in vv. 8-11). It seems reasonable to suggest that Jude may have shifted to Cain’s general propensity and reputation as a greedy person as portrayed extensively in second temple literature[40] and thereby likened to the next two notorious Old Testament figures—Balaam and Korah. Thus the godless, driven by greed, follow the error of Balaam, more specifically, the error of inciting foolish acts of rebellion (Num. 25:1-3; 31:16; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 4.6.6 §§ 129-30).[41] And the godless, driven by greed, follow the rebellion of Korah who revolted against Moses’ authority (Num. 16:1-35; cf. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 4.3.4 § 57-58).[42]

Consequently the comparison between the past and the present is this: Though Gentile urban centers rebelled against God’s societal norms by rejecting God’s marital standards between husband and wife (v. 7), the godless Zealots of Jude’s day were even worse. They were religiously contaminated in that they denied Jesus as Messiah and thereby God Himself (vv. 4, 8), they suffered from voicing stupid statements and exhibiting a lack of self-control brought about by ignoring human reason (v. 10), and they were greedy, self-absorbed political revolutionaries (v. 11). Jude viewed all these behaviors as unacceptable forms of rebellion against God’s societal norm.

Rebellion Raises Divine Ire

Anyone who rebelled against God experienced His divine ire. Jude wanted his readers to remember that God was impartial when He judged rebellion, no matter who rebelled against Him, whether Jew, celestial being, or Gentile urbanite. The wilderness generation’s rebellion against God’s leading at Kadesh-barnea ended in physical death. Thus when Jude wrote that “God destroyed” (ἀπώλεσεν, v. 5)[43] the Israelites because of their disbelief, he meant that God pronounced a penalty of physical death.

Concerning the angelic rebellion against God’s universal design, God confined the celestial dissenters “in eternal chains” (δεσμοις ἀϊδίοις, v. 6). Although it is not unusual to read about people bound in chains and imprisoned either as criminals or prisoners of war,[44] the concept of angels being shackled is not common, nor is it mentioned in Genesis 6, but it is prominent in 1 Enoch.[45] Similarly Genesis says nothing of shackled angels being confined “in darkness” (ὑπὸ ζόφον)[46] “for the judgment of the great day” (εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας).[47] But as if they were criminals or prisoners of war, Jude vividly depicted the miserable conditions of rebellious angels: they have been chained, cast into a dark prison, were incapable of moving about freely, and were kept by God for judgment. Angels who rejected their prescribed heavenly residence are “banished from heaven and condemned to imprisonment in darkness within the earth with chains (1 Enoch 10:4-6; 14:5; 54:3-5) until the ominous ‘great day of judgment’ (1 Enoch 10:12; 22:11).”[48] As the Zealot insurgence against Rome was gaining momentum to establish with military force God’s eschatological kingdom, was Jude intending for his readers to ponder their placement in Roman society? “To keep one’s proper station in society,” avers Green, “was a high value during the era when Jude wrote. In a stratified society where status and position were marked by both clothing and positions in banquets and the theater, the accusation that these beings had moved outside their proper sphere or realm would have been understood as a transgression without any further mention of their sin.”[49]

Participants in the Gentile urbanite rebellion against God’s societal norms suffered (“by suffering,” ὑπέχουσαι, v. 7) a “divine punishment” (δίκην).[50] A similar combination of the terms “suffer” (ὑπέχω) and “punishment” (δίκην) occurs in Josephus to describe God’s people suffering divine judgment of the flood (The Antiquities of the Jews 1.3.8 § 99) and a plague for rebellion (4.4.1 § 61; cf. 17.5.6 § 129). Consequently Sodom and Gomorrah symbolized (“they are set as an example,” πρόκεινται δεῖγμα)[51] the sort of judgment to expect for any sinful city (Jer. 49:18; 50:40), Jew (Amos 4:11; Testament of Levi 14:6), or Gentile (Zeph. 2:9).[52]

Furthermore they were consumed by an “eternal fire” (πυρὸς αἰωνίου). The concept of “eternal fire” could serve as a warning,[53] an expression for hell,[54] or both, that is, a temporal warning for the present in order to avoid the eschatological perils of eternal flames associated with hell. As Schreiner observes, “This fire functions as an example because it is a type or anticipation of what is to come for all those who reject God. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not merely a historical curiosity; it functions typologically as a prophecy of what is in store for the rebellious.”[55] Regardless of how the figure is explained, the point is that as it happened to the Gentiles, so it might happen to any Judean who rejected God’s societal norms. The Gentile urbanites’ rebellion against God’s nuptial expectations ended in their entire cities being destroyed by fire.

In Jude’s present situation the godless are considered damned (v. 11). Jude’s prophetic pronouncement, typically rendered “woe to them” (οὐαί αὐτοῖς), seems a rather mild reproach in today’s culture.[56] Perhaps a more appropriate contemporary English rendering would be “Damnation will come to them” or “They are damned” or just simply, “Damn them.” Jude’s expression is a prophetic pronouncement of judgment on a group of people who have forsaken God similar to pronouncements uttered by Old Testament prophets (cf. Isa. 5:1-30; Jer. 22:13-17; 23:1-4; Amos 6:1-3; Hab. 2:6-20), the author of 1 Enoch (94:6-8; 95:4-7; 96:4-8; 97:7-8; 98:9-16; 99:11-15; 100:7-9), and Jesus (e.g., Matt. 11:21; 18:7; 23:13-16, 23, 25, 27, 29; cf. Peter’s statement in Acts 8:20).[57] Thus Jude condemned rather harshly the godless who were recruiting Jews to rebel against Rome.[58] Furthermore, Jude’s appeal to 1 Enoch 1:9 certainly directs attention to the fact that Judea’s rebellion raises divine ire. Although 1 Enoch contains five separate works and each one is unique,[59] they all contribute to a major theme, which Nickelsburg states “is the coming judgment in which God will adjudicate the injustices that characterize life as the authors and their readers experience it.”[60] Needless to say, it is the predominant theological theme in Jude’s vituperative letter against the godless Zealots.

Conclusion

Jude’s grouping of the disbelieving Exodus generation, the seditious celestial beings, and the Gentile cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is not unique to Jude. This theme of rebellion followed by judgment occurs in numerous Jewish writings.[61] What is unique to Jude is his intention. Jude desired that Judeans remember that whether a person is an Israelite, an angel, or a Gentile urbanite, God punishes rebellion. Jude makes it perfectly clear that rebellion of any kind raises divine ire and that God judges rebellion impartially and in various ways. Jude demonstrates God’s impartiality via the divine judgment of Jew, angel, and Gentile alike.

Groups	Types of Rebellion	Types of Punishment
Jewish People	Disbelief in God’s Leading	Physical Death and No Entrance into the Land of Promise
Angelic Beings	Rejection of God’s Designated Placement or Station	Imprisonment and No Longer Able to Interact in Heaven or on Earth
Gentile People	Rejection of God’s Societal Norms	Physical Destruction of Cities and Their Inhabitants

Jude’s pronounced concern about the present rebellion, in particular the rebellion against Rome, is simply that God would punish the rebellion that was wreaking havoc throughout the land. Having identified three types of rebellion—disbelief in God’s leading, rejecting God’s prescribed residence, and rejecting God’s societal norms—and noting the divine ire it raises (e.g., physical death, imprisonment, and total destruction of cities) served as a warning to Judean followers of Jesus to stay clear of those who were advocating a rebellion against Rome.

Followers of Jesus in all eras are prone to wander, prone to rebel and favor the word “no,” often associated with “the terrible twos” stage of life. Ideally, parents deal with defiance impartially and consistently, and children learn that repercussions follow rebellion. Unfortunately, no matter what the age, there remains a terrible two in everyone. All are prone to say “no” to the heavenly Father in His leading to remain true to Him, to submit to governing authorities, and to honor wedding vows. Consequently, Jude serves as a reminder that divine repercussions exist for anyone who persists in telling God “No.”

Notes

1. Several reasons suggest why Jude’s epistle tends to be overlooked. First, Jude’s insulting tone (vv. 8-16) and his evident displeasure over the godless when he declared, “Damnation to them” (οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, v. 11) can be unsettling. Second, words interwoven in the letter like “I keep” (τήρεω, vv. 1, 6, 13, 21) and “immorality” (ἀσέλγεια, v. 4; ἐκπορνεύσω, v. 7) are finely nuanced and important for understanding Jude’s argument. His ambiguous use of “ungodly” (ἀσεβεῖς) and “these people” (οὗτοι, vv. 8, 10, 12, 16, 19) is difficult to apply to twenty-first-century believers. Third, Jude’s references to Old Testament situations (e.g., Exodus generation, angels, and Gentile urbanites, vv. 5-7) as well as Old Testament people (e.g., Cain, Korah, Balaam, v. 11) and his application of them to his generation may seem foreign. Fourth, including nonbiblical material like 1 Enoch (vv. 14-15) and The Assumption (Testament) of Moses (v. 10) generates theological uneasiness. In short, the letter is both difficult to interpret and to apply. Nevertheless in his expressed annoyance, Jude wanted his Judean readers to consider any and all forms of rebellion as unacceptable (vv. 5-7, 10), to stand firm in their faith in Christ (vv. 3-4), and to extend mercy to those who do not believe (vv. 22-23).
2. Jude 3, “I just now had necessity to write to you” (ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν), seems somewhat intense, reflecting a sudden change of mind, and perhaps even an unexpected interruption, which is also evident in several translations: “I found it necessary to write” (ESV, NKJV), “I felt the necessity to write” (NIV), “I now feel compelled instead to write” (NET), and “I must write” (CEV, NLT). The Greek word ἀνάγκην occurs seventeen times in the New Testament. In Jude 3 it has a certain amount of force whereby Jude was compelled “to appeal” (ESV, NRSV), “to urge” (NIV, NLT, CEB), “to exhort” (KJV, ASV), or “to encourage” (NET) Judean believers to struggle intensely for their faith. Josephus used the same term when discussing the Jewish war with Rome (AD 66-73). “The great encouragements which the Jews had in view to act vigorously were their fear for themselves and for the temple, and the presence of their tyrant, who exhorted (παρακαλῶν) some, and beat and threatened others to act courageously” (Josephus, The JewishWars 6.2.6 § 143).
3. Josephus used ἀσεβεῖς some sixty times in The Jewish Wars and The Antiquities of the Jews, mostly to depict tyrannical leadership over Israel and Judah. The essential thesis of TheJewish Wars (1.4 § 9-12) is that the Jewish revolt against Rome “was caused by only a few troublemakers among the Jews–power-hungry tyrants and marauders who drove the people to rebel against their will” (Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992], 60). From TheAntiquities of the Jews a few examples of ungodly tyrants over Israel are Jeroboam (8.9.1 §§ 243-45), Baasha (8.12.3 § 299), Ahab (9.1.1 § 1), and Pekah (9.11.1 § 234). A few examples of tyrants over Judah are Rehoboam (8.10.2 §§ 251, 256), Ahaz (9.12.1 § 243), and Manasseh (10.3.1 § 37).
4. Some suggest this reference to “dreamers” (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι) indicates these godless dream dreams. Yet when dreams and visions occur in Hebrew Scriptures, the content and interpretation follow, and they are somewhat lengthy narratives (e.g., Jacob, Gen. 28:12; Joseph, Gen. 37:5, 9; 41:5; and Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 2:1, 3). Jude’s contextual brevity (e.g., no content or interpretation of the dreams is included) and subsequent threefold depictions of the godless as contaminated, rebellious, and slanderous (v. 8), as well as the lack of any direct reference to the godless as “false teachers,” seem to support Horst Balz when he says, “We cannot agree with much modern exegesis in seeing a reference to special ecstatic or visionary experiences.” This is not to suggest that people did not have dreams and visions during the second temple period. Like most visions and dreams in Hebrew Scriptures, however, the content of second temple visions or dreams is also given for the reader. For instance, 4Q543 f1a c:1 reads, “A copy of the book ‘The Words of the Vision of Amram [son of Kohath, son of Levi].’ ” This seems to be similar to dreams and visions in Daniel (Greek: ἐνύπνιον and ὁράματι). In another second temple text, Isaac has a “dream” (ὀνείρον) and he is to relate that “vision” (ὅραμα) to others (Testament of Abraham A 4:8; cf. Acts 11:1-18; 1 Enoch; 4Q543). In both cases, the content of the vision is provided in the text. Thus Earl J. Richard correctly concludes, “Since nothing in the letter supports the visionary option, it seems logical to opt for the meaning that depicts more succinctly the opponents’ moral and intellectual bankruptcy (see vv. 10, 12-13, 16, 19)” (Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000], 268; see also Horst Balz, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1974], s.v. ἐνυπνιάζομαι).
5. Whereas “certain persons” (τινες ἄνθρωποι) occurs in verse 4, the most frequent reference to the rebels is “these people” (οὗτοι, vv. 8, 10, 12, and perhaps 19). Jerome H. Neyrey views the repetition of “these . . .” as an anaphora figure of speech in which the repetition of “these people” is linked throughout the letter to catalog their evils (2 Peter, Jude, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 72). Although Peter also uses οὗτοι (2 Pet. 2:12), he directs explicit attention against “false teachers” (ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι), who were more than likely men due to the historical and cultural setting (see NET note for Jude 4). Jude’s indistinct references throughout the letter make it difficult to pinpoint exactly who these people were. However, during the Jewish revolt, both men and women took part in the war, as evidenced via battles throughout the country. This revolt was not only cross-generational among men, it was also cross-gender, as evident in the suicides at both Gamla and again at Masada (Josephus, The Jewish Wars 4.1.9 § 63-83; 7.9.1 § 389-406). Thus, it appears more than likely “certain people” and “these people” fit Jude’s historical context of the Jewish revolt. See Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D., trans by David Smith (Edinburgh, England: T & T Clark, 1989).
6. This article assumes that Jude wrote his letter while living in Judea to Judean followers of Jesus after the death of James (AD 62) and before the Jewish revolt (AD 66-73) when King Agrippa II (great-grandson of Herod the Great) shared political leadership with Festus, Rome’s procurator over Judea and Samaria (cf. Acts 25:13-26:32). The Jewish revolt against Rome resulted in various active factions among the Jewish leadership. On the one hand, there was a radical faction led by two people. One was a priest named Eleazar, son of Simon, and the other was Menachem from the Sicarii and a descendant of “Judas the Galilean.” There is no need to doubt whether Menahem claimed to be the Messiah. He was a warrior who entered Jerusalem dressed as a king, quarreled with the high priest (who may have entertained some doubts about Menahem’s claim), and worshipped God in the temple (Josephus, The Jewish Wars 2.442-48). On the other hand, there was a moderate faction led by the wealthy aristocracy: the Herodian family, the Sadducees, the Boethusians, and those of the priestly tradition who merely wished to work towards accommodation and not confrontation. A full discussion and support are available in Herbert W. Bateman IV, Jude and Second Peter, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, ed. W. Hall Harris III (Bellingham, WA: Logos, forthcoming).
7. Some examples of segmented rebellion in the wilderness from the book of Numbers are Miriam and Aaron, who rebelled against Moses and his choice of an Ethiopian wife (12:1-15); Korah, along with Dathan and Abiram rebelled against Moses’ leadership (16:1-35); and people rebelled against Moses by their perpetual complaints about their circumstances (11:1-15). Each was divinely judged. The first was judged by leprosy (12:10, 13-16), and the latter two by death (16:20-35; 11:3, 31-34).
8. Cf. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 3.12.6 § 297.
9. Alluding to the Kadesh-barnea event is not unique to Jude. Hebrews 3:7-4:14 also references Kadesh-barnea. By way of Psalm 95, Hebrews emphasizes hardening of the heart. In the LXX, the Hebrew verb קשׁה is rendered as σκληρύνω (“harden”) in Psalm 94[95]:8. The term conveys an attitude of stubbornness. It is used to describe Pharaoh and Zedekiah (Exod. 13:15; 2 Chron. 36:13), the Exodus/wilderness community (Exod. 32:9; 33:5; 34:9; Deut. 9:6, 13; 31:27), the pre-dynastic community (Judg. 2:19), the dynastic communities of Judah and Israel (2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chron. 30:8; Isa. 48:4; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 19:15; Ezek. 2:4; 3:7), the Jewish community’s ancestors (2 Chron. 30:8; Neh. 9:16-17, 9:26; 4Q504 frag 4:7), and it was a characteristic not observed in the Qumran community (1QS 5:5, 26; cp. Prov. 28:14; 29:1). Psalm 94[95] specifically cites the wilderness community’s stubbornness at “Meribah as in the day of Massah in the wilderness” (cf. Exod. 17:1-7; Num. 20:1-13). Thus, the wilderness rebellion in Psalm 95:7-11 provides a model not to be followed. Yet unlike Hebrews 3:7-4:14, where the followers of Jesus are warned not to become like those followers of God at Kadesh-barnea, Jude warned his readers that there were people who were like those ten spies at Kadesh-barnea in the midst of their congregations.
10. Cf. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 3.14.1-15.1 §§ 300-14.
11. The construction “the only Master and Lord” (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον) is significant in Greek. The designations “Master” and “Lord” follow a typical pattern in Greek, article–noun–καί–noun. Since both nouns are singular and personal, and not proper names, the phrase fits the Granville Sharp rule, which means here that “Master” and “Lord” refer to one person. The same construction occurs in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:11. See Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 31-44; and idem,Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 276-77.
12. Josephus employed ἀσέλγεια broadly to include “inappropriate” language (The Antiquities of the Jews 4.6.12 § 151), of following a way of “wickedness” as a reproof to governing officials (ibid., 8.10.2 § 252), of women who fall into “impurity” (ibid., 8.13.1 § 318), of Herod’s feelings of “lust” (sexual?) for Cleopatra (ibid., 15.4.2 § 98), the inconsistency of Mariamne, which was not sexual (ibid., 16.7.1 § 185), of “wasteful behavior” (ibid., 17.5.5 § 110), of “impudent obsceneness” of a soldier (ibid., 20.5 § 112), of Cleopatra’s sexual lust for Anthony (The Jewish Wars 1.22.3 § 439), of “lascivious behavior” of women (ibid., 2.8.2 § 121), and of “unlawful pleasures” (ibid., 4.9.10 § 562). So for Josephus, ἀσέλγεια takes into consideration many wicked activities. Some commentators, however, limit it to be sexual. For instance, even while admitting that in Hosea it is a metaphor for idolatry, Harrington still contends “it is best taken in its root sexual sense” (Donald Senior and Daniel Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, Sacra Pagina [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003], 190). Yet Steven J. Kraftchick rightly concludes about ἀσέλγεια, “We cannot say that the opponents were actually engaged in sexual misconduct” (Jude, 2 Peter, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries [Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 33-34).
13. Although the noun κυριότητα is rendered as “dominion” in referencing angelic beings (Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:21; cf. 1 Enoch 61:10; 2 Enoch 20:1), in Jude κυριότητα refers back to verse 4. Years later, the author of TheDidache wrote, “My child, you shall be mindful day and night of the one who speaks to you the word of God. You shall honor him as the Lord [ἡ κυριότης], for at the source of proclamation of the lordship [of the Lord], the Lord is there” (4:1; cf. Hermas Sim. 5.6.1; The Didache, trans. Kurt Niederwimmer [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 103, 105). Advocates for this view are Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1983], 56-57; Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 74-75; Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New International Biblical Commentary [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992], 248; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary [Nashville: B&H, 2003], 455-56). J. N. D. Kelly suggests a Gnostic orientation (A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, Thornapple Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981], 260-61).
14. See further discussion in Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Expectations of Israel’s King,” in Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King, by Herbert W. Bateman IV, Darrell L. Bock, and Gordon H. Johnston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 211-329.
15. Although it is assumed here that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 were angelic beings, some scholars believe they were human beings. Some contemporary commentaries argue they were offspring of Sethite women. Yet Job speaks of “sons of god” as angelic beings (1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Furthermore, the Hebrew “sons of God” (בְּנֵי־הָאַ'לחִים) is rendered “angels of God” (ἄγγελοι θεοῦ) in the Septuagint (3rd BC). Josephus also offers clarification when he writes, “for many angels of God [πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄγγελοι θεοῦ] when they had sex with women [lit. “with women joining together”; γυναιξὶ συνιόντες] they gave birth to sons [ἐγέννησαν παῖδας] that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength” (The Antiquities of the Jews 1.3.1 § 73). Josephus adds, “Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy, for many angels of God [πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄγγελοι θεοῦ] accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, That these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants [γιγάντων]” (ibid., 1.3.1 § 72-73).
16. Bauckham also views these two clauses as in synonymous parallelism. He contends, however, that the sin is one of apostasy because he views the opponents to be “a group of itinerant charismatics who have arrived in the church(es) to which he writes.” Thus, they claim to be followers of Jesus but are perverting the gospel message (Jude, 2 Peter, 11, 52). However, Jude describes this second rebellion as a refusal to accept God’s desired place in the heavens and thereby a rejection of God’s universal design.
17. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 448. Schreiner, however, tends to read Jewish tradition about sex with women into the text rather than concentrate on what Jude explicitly says about the event in order to address his current situation in Judea.
18. For instance one Dead Sea scroll states, “Peace and blessing for the lot of God, to exalt the authority of Michael among the gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh” (1QM 17:7-8; cf. 1 Enoch 82:10-20; 1QM 10:12). Naturally Michael is the archangel who appears in Jude 9. The point is that an angel is given authority or a “position of authority.” Thus the term might mean angels did not keep their office or position of rulership. Several commentators seem to support the idea that the angels did not keep their position as heavenly powers that they at one time occupied over the world (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 52; Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter, Jude, 50; Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 242; and Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 257).
19. Both possibilities (“ruler” and “domain”) are listed in Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 138d 7, s.v. ἀρχή). Several commentators appear to support the idea that Jude is merely saying they left heaven (e.g., Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008], 68; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 448; and NET). The synonymous parallelism would seem to support this option; the two clauses say the same thing with different terms.
20. In Josephus the verb “I blaspheme” (βλασφημέω) is used of “contumelious language” against Moses (The Antiquities of the Jews 3.14.3 § 307), of Nabal’s “critical language” against David (ibid., 6.13.7 § 300), of verbal insults against King Agrippa (The Jewish Wars 2.406, 637) and Tiberius (ibid., 2.493), of Apion who “criticizes” (βλασφημίας δοῦναι) the laws of his own country (Against Apion 2.14.143), of letters from one of the leaders of the Jewish revolt that were “full of reproaches and lies” (πλήρεσι βλασφημιῶν καὶ ψευσμάτων) (Life 47.245; cf. 50.260). Similarly Philo used the term to speak of Alexandrians who were “calumny and evil-speaking” (διαβολαῖς καὶ βλασφημίαις) about their king and thereby reviled him in his own person (Flaccus 33). Philo also used it of the builders of Babel (Gen. 11:6) who insulted God’s angels (Conf. 154). Likewise in Scripture, βλασφημέω conveys the idea of speaking ill of another person (1 Pet. 4:4; Titus 2:3), God’s name (Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24), God’s Spirit (Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10), God’s leaders, celestial beings (2 Pet. 2:10, 12), or a combination of the above (Mark 3:28).
21. See ASV, KJV, and Harrington, Jude and 2 Peter, 206. Although the Hebrew equivalent נכבדים often describes nobility (Isa. 23:8; Nah. 3:10; 1QpHab. 4:2), the elderly (Isa. 3:5), illustrious men (1QpHab 14:11), and people who reside at Qumran (1QSb 4:20; 1QM 10:10; 14:12 [4Q491 f8 10i:9]; 4Q521 f2ii+4:7), Bauckham rightly observes that the Septuagint does not translate נכבדים as δόξας (Jude, 2 Peter, 57). For instance the LXX renders נכבדים in Isaiah 3:5 as “the elder” (τὸν πρεσβύτην) and נכבדים in Isaiah 23:8 as “rulers” (ἄρχοντες) and in Nahum 3:10 as “the nobility” (οἱ μεγιστᾶνες).
22. For instance one Dead Sea scroll describes angels as “glorious ones”: “Behold, You are Chief of the gods and King of the glorious ones (נכבדים), Lord of every spirit and Ruler over every creature” (1QH 18:10). In 2 Enoch the author writes, “The glorious ones bowed down to the Lord, and said: Let Enoch go according to Thy word” (22:7; cf. 22:10). In Philo, Moses speaks of seeing the “glory” (δόξας) or perhaps the “glorious ones” that surround God rather than viewing God Himself (The Special Laws, 1:45). Advocates of this view are Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 57-59; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 64-65, 69; Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 76-77; Harrington, Jude and 2 Peter, 263; Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 263; and Schriener, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 455-57.
23. Perhaps the slander “relates,” as suggested by Hillyer, “to the angels’ function as mediators of the law of Moses (Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2; Jubilees 1:27-29; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 15.136) and guardians of creation (1 Cor. 11:10; Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 8.3.3), a responsibility which some angels had abdicated (Jude 6)” (Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 248).
24. In verse 9 Jude contrasted (δὲ) the verbally abusive acts of the godless directed at celestial beings in verse 8c with the self-control of the archangel. Michael’s dispute with Satan concerns the corpse of Moses: “he debated aggressively about Moses’ body” (διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως σώματος). Jude then credited Michael with the ability to exercise self-control when “he did not act rashly to bring a verbally abusive judgment against Satan” (οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας). So while arguing (διακρινόμενος) with the devil, Michael disputed (διελέγετο) aggressively over the corpse of Moses, and yet he managed to control his tongue. In essence Michael exhibited verbal restraint when it came to ushering a condemning judgment of other angels. For further discussion about the archangel Michael see Bateman, Jude and Second Peter, forthcoming).
25. Jewish literature often points out that Sodom and Gomorrah’s demise was due to depraved sexual activities (Gen. 19:1-13, 23-25; cf. Jubilees 16:5-6; 20:5-6; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.11.3-4 § 200-204; cf. Philo, Abel 122; Dreams 1:85). And yet their sins are expanded to include pride (Ezek. 16:49a), arrogance (Sir.; 3 Macc. 2:5), disregard for the poor (Ezek. 16:49b), hatred of foreigners (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.11.1 § 194), and moral debauchery in general (Ezek. 16:46-48; 3 Macc. 2:5). In fact Josephus captured all these sins when he described them as people who “grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth: they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.11.1 § 194; cf. Gen. 19:2-11).
26. Literal sexual deviations include premarital sex (Deut. 22:20-21); sex with foreigners (Num. 25:1; Philo, Dreams 1:89); Tamar and Gomer playing a whore or perhaps better an adulterer in Gomer’s case (Gen. 38:24; Hos. 1:2, 5); Northern Israel’s sexual orgies (Hos. 4:18); cultic prostitution (Exod. 34:15-16; Lev. 17:7; 19:9; 20:5; 21:9; Deut. 31:16), Dan committing revolting acts of the Gentiles in chasing after wives of lawless men (Testament of Dan). Figurative deviations include worshiping idols (Judg. 8:27; 2 Chron. 21:11; Hos. 4:12-13; 5:3; Sirach 46:11); Judah’s national whoredom (Jer. 3:1; Ezek. 6:9; 16:16, 20, 26, 28, 30, 33; 20:30; 23:3, 5, 30, 43); and general lusting (Num. 15:39; Judg. 2:17). This obviously is different from Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek–EnglishLexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, in that its definition of ἐκπορνεύω is limited to “indulge in illicit sexual relations/debauchery (309a, s.v. ἐκπορνεύω). Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider say “be very immoral” (s.v. ἐκπορνεύω, in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990]; cf. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [1968], s.v. πόρνη . . . ἐκπορνεύω and the discussions of extramarital intercourse).
27. Many consider the word “these” (τούτοις) to refer back to the “angels” (ἀγγέλους) of verse 6 (cf. NET). If this is so, to what is Jude drawing the reader’s attention? An interpretive paraphrase would be “the cities practiced immoral sexual relations like the angels.” Jude’s depiction of seditious celestial beings, however, does not involve sexual deviations but rather a refusal to accept God’s designated placement or station. Perhaps the demonstrative pronoun “these” (τούτοις) should be declined as a neuter plural dative and modify both “Sodom and Gomorrah” because it is not unusual for neuters to have antecedents of mixed gender or sometimes even purely masculine gender (cf. Rom. 2:14; 1 Cor. 6:10-11; cf. KJV, and ESV).
28. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich define “different” (ἑτέρας) as “to be dissimilar in kind or class from all other entities” and cite speaking with another language (Acts 2:4; Isa. 28:11; 1QH 4.16) as an example (A Greek–EnglishLexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 399d 2, s.v. ἑτέρας). Using the noun “flesh” (σάρξ) for a “whole person” or “living being” is a figure of speech known as a synecdoche, where the part is used for the whole. Thus flesh is put for the whole person and is a frequent figure of speech in Scripture (Gen. 6:12; Ps. 56:4[5]; Isa. 40:5; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29). See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968; tenth 1984), 642.
29. Green, Jude & 2 Peter, 71-72.
30. Those who tend to advocate limiting “defiled flesh” to sexual impurity are Harrington, Jude and 2 Peter, 206; Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 247; Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 41-42; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 456; and of Gnostic orientation: Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 260-61.
31. Within Judaism, religious purity may be jeopardized when “a person” (“flesh,” σάρξ) defiles himself through contact with a dead body (Tobit; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 4.4.6 § 81) or by entering a Gentile’s home (John 18:28). Other examples may include contact with unclean animals (Lev. 5:3; 11:24, 43, 44; 22:8; Josephus, TheAntiquities of the Jews 3.12.1 § 275), contracting disease (Lev. 13:3, 11, 14, 15, 20, 27, 25, 27, 30, 44, 59; Philo, Quod Deus sit immutabilis 123-124), contact with the dead (Lev. 21:1, 11; Num. 19:13; Deut. 21:23; Philo, The Special Laws 3.152; Ezek. 44:25).
32. Within Judaism, religious impurity occurred through improper worship as a result of practicing idolatry (Exod. 20:25; Lev. 20:3; 2 Kings 23:13; Hos. 5:3; 6:10; Jer. 2:23; 3:1-2; Ezek. 5:11; 20:7, 18, 31; 28:7; 37:23; 1 Macc. 4:45). Unbelief was also viewed as a form of corruption or religious defilement (Titus 1:15). Jude described the godless as people who do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah (v. 4; cf. v. 8b) and may suggest that the godless suffered from a form of religious contamination because of unbelief in Jesus as Messiah.
33. Within Judaism, religious impurity occurred because of immoral acts of murder (Num. 5:1-2, 10), by an abundance of war as in the case of David, who was considered defiled because of his making many wars and slaughtering his enemies (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 7.4.4 § 92; cp. 7.14.8 § 371), by language (ibid., 16.4.1 § 93), by bitterness (Heb. 12:15), and by sexual misconduct including adultery (Num. 5:3, 14, 20, 27, 29; Ezek. 22:11; 44:25); a brothel house (Josephus, The Jewish Wars 4.9.10 § 562), rape (Gen. 34:5, 13, 27), incest (Gen. 49:4), homosexual activities (Philo, The Special Laws, 2.50; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 3.12.1 § 375). Philo also spoke of a person defiled through his mind by “giving himself up to folly and being bred up with shamelessness and audacity, infamous man that he was, attempted to pollute and to defile the judicial faculties of the mind” (Migration 224; cf. Titus 1:15). Other examples may include 1 Enoch 7:1; 9:8; 10:11; 12:4; 15:3, 4; Epistle of Aristeas 166; Papiri greco-egizii, Papiri Fiorentini, Supplementi Filologico-Storici ai Monumenti Antichi (Milan: Hoepli, 1905-1915), 338, 18; Josephus, The Jewish Wars 4.5.2 § 323).
34. Verses 8-10 expose the unbecoming scruples of contemporary rebels. Jude portrayed the godless as self-indulgent rebels who lacked restraint and engaged in slander. Although verses 8-10 consist of seven independent clauses and three dependent clauses, a significant lexical feature throughout these verses is the use of βλασφημέω in verses 8 and 10 as well as βλασφημίας in verse 9. The concept of blasphemy links these verses to form a single unit of thought. For further discussion about the linking of these verses with “blasphemy” see Bateman, Jude and Second Peter (forthcoming).
35. To speak with “no understanding” (οὐκ οἴδασιν) occurs in Joseph and Aseneth. In Aseneth’s confession of sin and prayer for acceptance she expresses regret for speaking without understanding when she admits, “And I did not know, miserable that I am, that he is your son, O Lord; for the people told me that Joseph was a son of a shepherd from the land of Canaan, and I believed them. But I was wrong, and I despised Joseph, your chosen one, and I spoke evil words of him, not knowing [οὐκ ᾔδειν] that he is your son” (13:10). On the other hand to slander with no understanding may generate ridicule. For instance Josephus insulted Apion for speaking without understanding when he wrote, “And say you so, sir! as I may reply; then does Apion load the ass, that is himself, and lays on him a burden of fooleries and lies; for he writes of places that have no being; and not knowing [οὐκ εἰδὼς] the cities he speaks of, he changes their situation” (AgainstApion 2.10 § 115). In a similar way God refers to those who do not know Him (they have no understanding) as stupid: “For my people are foolish, they do not know [οὐκ ᾔδεισαν] me; they are stupid children, they have no understanding” (Jer. 4:22, NRSV). Jude’s use of “no understanding” is in keeping with the latter of these usages.
36. Naturally the drive to care for children is as instinctive for people as it is for “unreasoning animals” (τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα; cf. 4 Macc. 4:14, 18). Yet caring for children and even nature’s drive to survive are not what concerned Jude. Jude’s comment insulted the godless because he insinuated that they ignore all reason. Ptolemy Philadephia (285-247 BC) allegedly inquired of a group of Jewish delegates, “What is the highest form of sovereignty (= government)?” One of those Jewish representatives, Eleazar, who was sent to Ptolemy’s court responded, “Control of oneself, and not being carried away by one’s impulses” (φυσικόν; Letter of Aristeas, 222). While admittedly people are driven by natural instincts, control of those instincts was expected. Isaiah compares a dog’s lack of contentment with that of shepherds: “The dogs have a mighty appetite; they never have enough. The shepherds also have no understanding [οὐκ εἰδότες]; they have all turned to their own way, to their own gain, one and all” (Isa. 56:11, NRSV). And though Jude did not address false prophets, the apparent lack of self-control as well as ignoring all reason drove Jewish leaders to revolt against Rome. In essence Jude portrayed the godless as people who lacked control as a result of ignoring reason. See Josephus’s attempt to dissuade the Jews from entering the war in Life.
37. On the one hand, most translations render φθείρονται as “they are destroyed” (ASV, CNT, ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, and NRSV). Conceptually Josephus used the verb “I destroy” (φθείρω) most frequently to speak of physical death in general, but he also used the term more specifically to speak of destruction (of the world destroyed by fire, Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.2.3 § 70; of a city, ibid., 5.1.2.12; of a Philistine city, ibid., 5.8.7 § 296; 20.2.2 § 29; and circumstances in general, ibid., 9.14.3 § 289). The latter perspective is often understood to speak of suffering eternal punishment as in 1 Peter 2:12. On the other hand a few translations render φθείρονται as “they are corrupt” (KJV, KJVS, BISHOP, DRBY, YNG). The term may specify sexual corruption and other times it may refer more broadly to general corruption. For instance, Josephus employs the term to speak of sexual corruption of “Abimelech, the king of that country, who did also himself fall in love with Sarah, and was disposed to corrupt her” (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.12.1 § 207) as well as the general corruption of people (ibid., 18.4.4 § 100); by gifts (ibid., 20.6.2.127); by a political power (The Jewish Wars 4.9.4 § 510); by money (Life 13.73), or simply a charge of corruption (The Jewish Wars 1.31.5 § 618). More frequently, however, the New Testament uses the term to speak of corrupt morals (1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:22; Rev. 19:2; cf. 2 Cor. 7:2; 11:3). Certainly in Jude’s immediate context the issue was a moral one, slander (the reoccurrence of the verb βλασφημέω recalls the same verb in verse 8 as well as the noun βλασφημίας in v. 9).
38. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 85.
39. Ibid., 90.
40. Portrayals of Cain in second temple literature vary in what they emphasize about him. In a work from around the time of the Maccabean revolt (ca. 164 BC), Cain is portrayed typologically as a warning to any who may pattern their life in moral corruption: “Until eternity those who are like Cain in their moral corruption and hatred of brother shall be punished with a similar judgment” (Testamemt of Benjamin 7:5). In another work written around AD 70, Cain is presented in heaven with “the crafty adversary,” acts under the influence of “the lawless one,” and in essence has joined hands with the devil: “And I saw, as it were, Adam, and Eve who was with him, and with them the crafty adversary and Cain, who had been led by the adversary to break the law, and (I saw) the murdered Abel (and) the perdition brought on him and given through the lawless one” (Apocalypse of Abraham 24:5). Finally, Josephus in his retelling of the Cain and Abel event makes several editorial comments that depict Cain’s greedy disposition: “Now, the two brethren were pleased with different courses of life, for Abel, the younger, was a lover of righteousness, and, believing that God was present at all his actions, he excelled in virtue; and his employment was that of a shepherd. But Cain was not only very wicked in other respects, but was wholly intent upon getting; and he first contrived to plough the ground” (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.2.1 § 53). The portrayal of Cain’s greedy disposition expands when Josephus muses, “And when Cain had travelled over many countries, he, with his wife, built a city, named Nod, which is a place so called, and there he settled his abode; where also he had children. However, he did not accept of his punishment, in order to amendment, but to increase his wickedness; for he only aimed to procure everything that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors. He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine and violence; he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasures and spoils by robbery, and became a great leader of men into wicked courses. He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights. And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness” (ibid., 1.2.2 § 60-61). Josephus ends his editorial comments about Cain’s greedy posterity with “even while Adam was alive, it came to pass that the posterity of Cain became exceeding wicked, every one successively dying one after another more wicked than the former. They were intolerable in war, and vehement in robberies; and if anyone were slow to murder people, yet was he bold in his profligate behavior, in acting unjustly and doing injuries for gain” (ibid., 1.2.2 § 66; cf. Philo, Worse 10 § 32). Thus, second temple literature paints Cain as one who hated his brother and was morally corrupt (Testament of Benjamin 7:5), but his moral corruption resonated more specifically with a greedy disposition that enhances personal pleasures at the expense of others through robbery and murder if necessary (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.2.1-2 § 52-61) and was in keeping with the devil, whom he associated with himself (Apocalypse of Abraham 24:5).
41. Although God appeared to Balaam, inquired about Balak’s delegation that arrived in Pethor, and directed Balaam not to curse Israel (Num. 22:9-14), he still saddled his donkey and set out for Moab (22:15-21). However, through a chain of supernatural events (22:22-35), a certain irony emerged as the historical account unfolded. Balaam blessed Israel (Num. 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) and cursed Moab with other surrounding enemies (24:20, 21-22, 23-24). True to the God who spoke through him (22:9, 12, 13, 20, 35, 38; 23:3, 5, 12, 16, 26; 24:2, 13), three of Balaam’s oracles contain short, cryptic prophecies about the coming king of Israel (23:21; 24:7, 17-19), which is most notably positive in many texts outside the book of Numbers. See Gordon Johnston’s discussion in Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King, by Herbert W. Bateman IV, Darrell L. Bock, and Gordon H. Johnston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 52-57. Although Balaam’s greed lingers in Jewish second temple retellings about Balaam, what Josephus emphasizes is Balaam’s advice to Balak that would provoke foolish young men to act rashly and eventually take up idolatry at Baal-Peor (cf. 25:1-3 with 31:16).
42. Korah is remembered for instigating a major rebellion against God’s chosen leader, Moses (Num. 16:1-35). Korah, a Levite, incited 250 leaders (“princes”) to rebel against Moses and Aaron (“stood before Moses”) for allegedly exalting himself over the entire community (vv. 1-3). Moses’ response to Korah and the 250 leaders was to let the Lord decide. When Moses summoned Dathan and Abriam, they too joined the rebellion. The next day, each brought his own censer with fire and incense on it, and they assembled at the tent of meeting. Korah and the others were standing against Moses and Aaron at the entrance of the tent of meeting when the glory of the Lord appeared to everyone (vv. 4-19). The Lord directed Moses and Aaron to separate the community from Korah, Dathan, and Abram. Then Moses declared that if these men died a natural death, it would prove that the Lord did not send Moses. But if the Lord did something phenomenal, then they would know that they had despised the Lord (vv. 20-30). When Moses was finished speaking, the ground split open where Korah, Dathan, and Abriam and their entire families stood and “swallowed them.” Two hundred fifty men who offered incense were devoured by fire (vv. 31-35).
43. For instance the Egyptian pursuit of the Israelites leaving Egypt came to an abrupt end: “what he [God] did to the Egyptian army, to their horses and chariots, how he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued you, so that the Lord has destroyed [ἀπώλεσεν] them to this day” (Deut. 11:4, NRSV; cf. 4Q 122.1-5). Noncanonical retellings of the Exodus event also consider “destroy” to mean physical death. For instance, in speaking of God’s judgment of Korah, Josephus wrote, “Moses, after these men were destroyed [ἀπολωλόταß], was desirous that the memory of this judgment might be delivered down to posterity, and that future ages might be acquainted with it” (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 4.3.4 § 57; of Dathan, ibid., 4.3.3 § 52; cf. Philo, Moses 2.281).
44. Of the forty-eight occurrences in the Septuagint many references use the noun “bind” (δεσμός; Heb. אסר) for literal imprisonment (of Israelites in Egypt, Lev. 26:13; of Manasseh in Assyria, 2 Chron. 33:11; Prayer of Manasseh 10; of Zedekiah in Babylon, 1 Esdras; of Jewish people in Egypt, 3 Macc. 3:25). Yet there are references to figurative bindings (of sin, Isa. 52:2; Jer. 2:20; of women, Eccles. 7:26). In the New Testament the idea of being bound for literal imprisonment describes the situations of both Peter and Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 12:7; 16:22-27). Likewise of the forty-five occurrences in Josephus, nearly all speak of someone bound for imprisonment (of Joseph in Egypt, The Antiquities of the Jews 10.7.5 § 122; of Jeremiah in Jerusalem, ibid., 10.7.5 § 122; of Aristobulus in Rome, ibid., 14.7.4 § 123; of Herod Agrippa in Rome, Josephus, The Jewish Wars 1.9.6 § 181). At Masada they would rather commit suicide than be placed in chains and taken to Rome (ibid., 7.9.1 § 389-406). In fact, Josephus recalls how the rebel leader John of Gischala, one of several who led a Jewish insurrection against Rome circa 67-68 was captured and describes his imprisonment as the equivalent to “eternal chains” (δεσμοῖς αἰωνίοις; ibid., 6.9.4 § 434).
45. For instance, “And to Michael God said, ‘Make known to Semyaz and the others who are with him, who fornicated with the women, that they will die together with them in all their defilement . . . bind them for seventy generations underneath the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment and of their consummation, until the eternal judgment is concluded’ ” (1 Enoch 10:12; cf. 4Q202 f1iv:5-10). 1 Enoch 10:12 was translated by E. Isaac in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 1:17. See also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 53.
46. The idea that angels are confined “in darkness” (ὑπο῏ ζόφον) is common in the Enoch tradition. 2 Enoch reads, “And those men picked me up and brought me up to the second heaven. And they showed me, and I saw a darkness greater than earthly darkness. And there I perceived prisoners under guard, hanging up, waiting for her measureless judgment. And those angels have the appearance of darkness itself, more than earthly darkness” (71-2; cf 18:1-5). Jude’s description “in darkness” (ὑπὸ ζόφον) may refer to a second heaven, beneath the earth, the ancient Greek’s “underworld” (CEB) or the “nether world” (RSV: “nether darkness”). Green supports the netherworld perspective with selected statements from Greek classical literature: “As for me, I depart for the darkness beneath the earth” (Aeschylus, Persians, 839); and “Forever in the nether gloom” (Euripides, Hippolytus, 1416). The concept of “darkness” occurs in Homer’s Iliad where Homer tells how the heaven and earth were divided into three parts: Neptune dwells in the sea, Hades took the darkness of the realms under the earth, and Zeus took to the air, sky, and clouds (15.184-199). More specifically, the Iliad says the god Hades rules the world below, “the darkness (ζόφον) of the realms under the earth” (15:191). Closely related to the Greek concept of Hades is a reference to the underworld as an abyss. Enoch describes, “I then saw one . . . seizing that first star binding his hands and feet, and throwing him into an abyss—this abyss was narrow and deep, empty and dark” (88:1; cp. 54:3-5). Perhaps it is merely a sort of pit or cistern. In 1 Enoch, the “darkness” in which Semyaz (sometimes referred to as Azaz’el) is buried (10:4-5; 11-12) seems to be nothing more than a cistern similar to the one Jeremiah was placed (Jer. 38:6-13; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 10.7.5 § 122). In Isaiah heavenly forces and earthly kings are imprisoned in a pit (e.g., “cistern,” see NET note) until a period of judgment (Isa. 24:21-22). Perhaps it is merely a hole in the ground or a grave. In 1 Enoch 10, an archangel bound the divine being called Semyaz, made a hole in the desert, cast him in the hole, threw on top of him rugged and sharp rocks, and covered his face in order that Semyaz would never see daylight (10:4-5), and again it is said he was placed “underneath the rocks of the ground” (10:11-12; cp. 14:5).
47. Jude’s reference to angels and the “judgment of the great day” (εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέραß) is not in Genesis 6:1-4. Perhaps this is his embellishment derived from Joel’s “the day of the Lord comes—that great and terrible day” (Joel 2:31; 3:4, NET) or from another Hebrew prophet because this concept resonates among many prophets (Isa. 13:6, 9; Joel 2:11; Amos 5:18, 20; Zeph. 1:14; Mal. 4:5). Although possible, Jude’s portrayal seems similar to 1 Enoch. The “judgment of the great day” (κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας) is God’s righteous judgment, when fallen angels are led into “the bottom of the fire—and in torment—the prison (where) they will be locked up forever” (10:13-14). Of significance are the perceived location of the sinful before judgment day, the judgment day itself, and the events after judgment day: “sinners are set apart when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed upon them in their lifetime . . . until the great day of Judgment—and to the accursed (there will be) plague and pain forever, and the retribution of their spirits. They will bind them there forever” (1 Enoch 22:10-11; cp. Luke 16). Regardless, celestial beings remain incarcerated until God’s appointed judgment day.
48. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter, 256.
49. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 69. “Legal position and status lay at the root of Roman social organization,” writes Craige B. Champion, “which at all levels was formally hierarchical.” “Rome exercised a quasi-paternal authority in its foreign policy and expected other states to behave as dutiful clients. In all such cases, Roman authority was paramount and subordinates were hierarchically graded” (The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. Michael Gagarin [New York: Oxford University Press, 2010], s.v. “Social Organization, Roman”). See also Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 48-69. At the time, Jude’s Judea was not behaving in a manner in keeping with Rome’s authority and was thereby rejecting its station in the Roman Empire.
50. The noun “punishment” (δίκην) is frequently used to describe judgment: against Egypt (Wis. 18:11); against anyone who ignored God and practiced sexual immorality or idolatry (Wis. 14:22-31; cf. 1:8); against the Jewish nation for Jason’s changing the nation’s way of life (4 Macc. 4:21); against a tyrant for an unjustified murder and other heinous crimes (4 Macc. 11:2; 18:22); and in 12:12 divine judgment involves “intense and eternal fire and tortures (πυκνοτέρῳ καὶ αἰωνίῳ πυρὶ καὶ βασάνοις) (18:22). Elsewhere the term appears in a request for substitution whereby divine judgment of the Jewish nation would be passed on to Eleazer (6:28) and in mention of people excused from divine judgment when fearing a king (8:22).
51. Although πρόκεινται δεῖγμα seldom denotes being placed on display as an example, Josephus references Jehoiachin as a public example for John of Gischala (a leading rebel in the Jewish revolt) concerning how to behave when he was faced with the threat of Jerusalem’s destruction by Rome. The event about Jehoiachin (alternative: Jechoniah) occurred when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judea (Hatti-land) sometime in December 598 BC, laid siege on Jerusalem, and captured it on Saturday, March 16, 597. While Jerusalem was under siege, Jehoiakim died in December 598. His son, Jehoiachin, ascended to the throne December 9, 598, but he reigned only three months and ten days, and was then deported to Babylon in 597 (2 Kings 24:8-14; 2 Chron. 36:9-10). Nebuchadnezzar then appointed Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, to be king over Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:17). The event also appears among the Babylonian cuneiform tablets: “In the month Kisliwu [Nov–Dec], the king of Addad called up his army, marched against Syria [lit., Hatti-land], encamped against the city of Judah and seized the town on the second day of the month Adar. He captured the king [i.e., Jehoiachin]. He appointed there a king of his own choice [i.e., Zedekiah]. He took much booty from it and sent (it) to Babylon” (James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969], 203, fig. 58). Josephus avers, “But still, John, it is never dishonorable to repent, and amend what has been done amiss, even at the last. You have a ‘good example set’ (καλο῏ν ὑπόδειγμα . . . πρόκειται) before you in Jechoniah, the king of the Jews. He, when of old his conduct had brought the Babylonian’s arm upon him, of his own free will left the city before it was taken, and with his family endured voluntary captivity” (The Jewish Wars 6.2.1 § 103-04; cf. Philo, Moses 1:48).
52. The sins of adultery, living lies, and encouragement of evildoers prior to the destruction of the first temple were, in God’s eyes, typical of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jer. 23:14). Others declared that “just as the Sodomites were destroyed from the earth, so all who serve idols will be destroyed” (4Q221 f2i:3; cf. 4Q223 224 f2ii:53). Jesus described Galilean rejection of Him and His ministry in the cities of Capernaum as sin whose judgment will be more terrible than that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15; 11:23-24; cf. Luke 10:12; 17:29; Rom. 9:29).
53. “Eternal fire” (πυρὸς αἰωνίου) could be classified as a figure of example as a precedent to be followed or avoided and thereby similar to one found in Luke 17:32. “Remember Lot’s wife” (i.e., do not look back) is the example. Here in Jude it is the fiery destruction of Gentile urbanites. Their sin should not be repeated. Since the geographical area where the urban infernos occurred remained desolate, “eternal fire” (πυρὸς αἰωνίου) could be conceived as a warning. The fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was so dreadful it was an eternal warning for all subsequent generations to beware lest it happen to them: “You consumed with ‘fire and sulfur’ [πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ] the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices; and you made them an example [παράδειγμα] to those who should come afterward” (3 Macc. 2:5; cf. Philo, Moses 2.56; Josephus, The Jewish Wars 4 § 483). See Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 467.
54. A periphrasis or circumlocution figure of speech uses seemingly unnecessary words to express the author’s point. For instance, “in the city of David” is a periphrasis for Bethlehem (Luke 2:11), and “this fruit of the vine” is a periphrasis for wine (Matt. 26:29). Here in Jude “eternal fire” is a periphrasis for hell. The idea of fire being an eternal form of punishment occurs elsewhere for tyrants: “justice has laid up for you intense and eternal fire and tortures, and these throughout all time will never let you go” (4 Macc. 12:12; cf. 1QS 2.8; Matt. 18:8; Rev. 20:11-15). Commentators vary. “Jude means,” according to Bauckham, “the still burning site of the cities is a warning picture of the eternal fires of hell” (Jude, 2 Peter, 55). Harrington sees “eternal fire” as a periphrasis for “hellfire” (Jude and 2 Peter, 197). What appears to drive this periphrasis sense is the presupposition that Jude spoke of the sexual misconduct of angels, who in turn will suffer the eternal fires of hell, where angelic beings are eventually cast for their sexual misconduct (1 Enoch 10:13-14; 20:1-7; cf. Rev. 20:10). Though there may be conceptual parallels with the angelic situation, it is not because of their sexual misconduct but rather their final punishment on the “great day of judgment.” Others who favor this both-and position are Davids, The Letter of 2 Peter and Jude, 53-54; Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 244-46; Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 39-40; and Moo, 2 Peter and Jude, 241-42. See Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 419-22.
55. Schreiner writes, “The brimstone, salt, and wasted nature of the land function as a warning for Israel and the church elsewhere in the Scriptures (Deut. 29:23; Jer. 49:17-18; cf. Isa. 34:9-10; Ezek. 38:22; Rev. 14:10-11; 19:3; 20:10)” (1, 2 Peter, Jude, 453). See also E. K. Lee, “Words Denoting ‘Pattern’ in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 8 (1961-62): 167.
56. The English expression “woe” is reminiscent of the King James era and yet, as indicated above, is maintained by many translations. Only the NLT breaks away from an antiquated English idiomatic expression with “What sorrow awaits them!” Woe-oracles are condemning prophetic announcements to the people of Israel for rejecting God and living sinful lives that warrant divine judgment. For instance Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah all utter woe oracles to the Jewish people: “Woe to them [οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς], for they have strayed from me! Destruction to them, for they have rebelled against me!” (Hos. 7:13, NET). “The look on their faces bears witness against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it. Woe to them [‘woe to their souls,’ οὐαὶ τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτῶν]! For they have brought evil on themselves” (Isa. 3:9, NET). “I have seen your abominations, your adulteries and neighings, your shameless prostitutions on the hills of the countryside. Woe to you [οὐαί σοι], O Jerusalem! How long will it be before you are made clean?” (Jer. 13:27, NET). “Woe to you [οὐαί ὑμῖν] who write down lying and godless words; for they write down their lies that men may hear them and act godlessly towards (their) neighbor” (1 Enoch 98:15). “Woe to you [οὐαὶ ὑμῖν] who work godlessness, and glory in lying and extol them: You shall perish, and no happy life shall be yours” (1 Enoch 99:1). Woe oracles are also used in prophetic announcements on Gentile nations as well. “Woe to the nations [οὐαὶ ἔθνεσιν] that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever” (Judith 16:17, NRSV). “Woe to you, Moab [οὐαί σοι, Μωάβ], Chemosh is destroyed: their sons who had sought to escape have been given up, and their daughters have become captive to Sihon, king of the Amorites” (Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 3:225; cf. 3:231; Num. 21:29).
57. In fact, one contemporary translation of Matthew 11:21 reads, “Damn you Chorazin! Damn you Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have (sat) in sackcloth and ashes and changed their ways long ago.” In fact, Jesus tells Capernaum “you’ll go to hell.” See Robert J. Miller, ed., The Gospels (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1994). D. A. Carson says, “May your money perish with you” in Acts 8:20 could be rendered idiomatically as “to hell with you and your money” (The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988], 64). See a discussion of Greek and English idiomatic language in Herbert W. Bateman IV, Interpreting the General Letters, Kregel’s Handbook of Exegesis, ed. John Harvey (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013), 145-48.
58. Jude states in verse 4 that some people παρεισέδυσαν (“have secretly slipped in,” NET, CEB; cf. NIV; “have secretly stolen in,” NRSV; “have crept in,” KJV, ASV, ESV; and even “have wormed their way into your churches,” NLT). Although the verb is unique to Jude, two significant usages are in extrabiblical material. The first usage occurs in a third-century papyri: “you cannot creep in [παρεισέδυσιν], for the woman has been in possession for a long time.” Here there seems to be a focus on secrecy (see Griechische Papyrus su Strassburg I, II, ed. F. Preisigke [Leipzig, 1912-1920], I.22:30). A second usage occurs in Josephus where he used the term to speak of people with less than honorable motives. During the time of Herod the Great (40-4 BC), some acted as friends and endeared themselves to honorable people only to spy on them (Josephus, The Jewish Wars 1.24.1 § 468). Despite its infrequent use, παρεισέδυσαν (“have slipped in secretly”) appears to communicate that “certain people” (τινες ἄνθρωποι) had managed to intermingle among Judean followers of Jesus in a manner that was at first unnoticed and were now perhaps gaining sway within the community as recruiters for the Jewish revolt.
59. 1 Enoch is a collection of five books: The Book of Watchers (1-36), The Book of Parables (37-71), The Book of Luminaries (72-82), The Book of Dream Visions (83-90), and The Epistle of Enoch (92-105).
60. George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 7.
61. For instance the Damascus Document (CD) is typically divided into two major sections: “The Admonition” and “The Law and Communal Rules.” “The Admonition” reviews Israelite history by focusing on Israel’s past and future punishment as well as God’s gracious salvation of Israel’s “remnant” (1:1-10; also referred to as “a sure house in Israel,” 3:19; “the House of Judah,” 4:11; and “those who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus,” 6:19; cf. 6:5, 7:19). The appeal to three historical tragedies in “the Admonition,” where the text speaks of God’s future punishment of wicked backsliders, warns readers to stay firm in the Jewish tradition and not to stray from it. In 3 Maccabees historical disasters attributed to God’s judgment are intentionally placed in the midst of an intercessory prayer for divine intervention against Gentiles who profane the temple. In Jude they are used intentionally to pause and remember that God judges the rebellious impartially and decisively. Richard correctly observes, “Examination of these shows no signs of literary borrowing by Jude” (1 Peter, Jude, 2 Peter, 266), though there are cultural, conceptual, and literary parallels.

Silent Prayer is Now Illegal in the UK | Calvin Robinson

Christ Saved Me From My Demonic Addictions | Calvin Robinson

When I Met President Trump | Calvin Robinson

The Archbishop of Canterbury Strays Further Toward Apostasy

Women Cannot Become Priests | Calvin Robinson

He spent 14,610 days on a pillar: Saint Symeon the Stylite

The Monk who Burned Lenin: Saint Gabriel Urgebadze

an exorcism in Alaska

God's Revelation (to the) Human Heart

This photo was taken 11 months after his funeral-

this word is the (True) purpose of human life

LEGION (Bible Anime)

a Monk saw this before death-

A Monastery 150 Feet up in the Air

The Mystery of the Eastern Orthodox Church

I AM (Bible Anime)

The Mystical Hermit of Alaska

The Myrrh Streaming Icon of Hawaii

FIG TREE (Bible Anime)

Fasting (of the) Eyes

Saint Nikephoros The Leper

ADAM'S LAMENT

DEATH TO THE WORLD: The Last True Rebellion

YOUTH OF THE APOCALYPSE

The Monk who saw the Apocalypse

O’ Israel! Which Lamb will you Choose?

The Gathering of the Faithful in Christ!

A Lamb With Two Horns.

When They Shall Say Peace and Safety!

The Meaning Of “Holy” In The Old Testament

By Peter J. Gentry

[Peter J. Gentry is Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.]

“No one is holy like Yahweh” was Hannah’s bold praise when God granted her request for a child (1 Sam. 2:2).[1] Hannah’s praise is based not only on her own experience, but also on the revelation given at the Exodus. Moses’ Song at the Sea rang out, “Who is like you among the gods, Yahweh? Who is like you—majestic in holiness!” (Exod. 15:11). The revelation of God as holy and the creation of a covenant people who are holy are connected specifically with the events of the Exodus. “Saint” is, in fact, an Exodus word, and indeed Paul’s use of it has in view the work of Jesus Christ as bringing about a new Exodus.[2]

Unfortunately, the church of Jesus Christ, at least in the western world, has not understood very well the meaning of the word “holy,” nor what it means to worship a holy God. Systematic theologians from the Reformation to the present time are surveyed by Richard Muller, who describes the Reformed orthodox doctrine of the divine holiness as follows: “Holiness, has, moreover, two implications, both of which are typically stated in relation or in contrast to creatures. First, it can indicate the absolute ‘moral purity’ of God and stand, therefore, in relation to his justice or righteousness. . . . Second, ‘the word is also employed to denote God’s infinite excellence above all that is low and created.’ ”[3] Thus holiness is seen as roughly equivalent to “purity” and “transcendence.”

Understanding of the root קדשׁ, moreover, is commonly based on the work of W. W. Baudissin, “Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT,” published in 1878.[4] Baudissin surmised that the original root was a biliteral קד meaning “to cut.” He influenced more than a century of ecclesiastical thought, for recent theologians continue to rely on the etymology adduced by him.

Not only is this etymology entirely uncertain,[5] but also scholars, whether biblical exegetes or systematic theologians, have been warned for over half a century about the dangers of etymological approaches to semantics. As an example, “nice” in English comes from the Latin word nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Thus the history or origin of a word may be interesting but entirely irrelevant for determining its meaning.

The best approach to semantic analysis is an exhaustive study of all available usage, both in the literature in question and in contemporary documents in the cultures surrounding the original texts of the Bible. For קדשׁ this kind of study was performed already in 1986 by a French evangelical, Claude Bernard Costecalde.[6] Costecalde analyzed the pertinent terms in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Northwest Semitic inscriptions in addition to the usage of קדשׁ in the Hebrew Bible. His exhaustive research was so well recognized by scholars that he was invited to contribute the article on holiness in the famous Catholic Dictionary known as Suppléments aux Dictionnaire de la Bible.[7] Although published a quarter of a century ago, this research has not penetrated the church in North America, possibly because Costecalde’s work is in French. My own exegesis over the last twenty-five years has been greatly stimulated by the work of Costecalde. Thus I am presenting his work as well as my own, which finds that neither “moral purity” nor “transcendence” is fundamental to the meaning of “holy” in Greek or Hebrew.

The meaning of the word “holy” can be expounded by focusing largely on three texts: Exodus 3, Exodus 19, and Isaiah 6.

Exodus 3—Holy Ground

In Exodus 3 Moses encounters Yahweh in the burning bush and is asked to remove his sandals because he is standing on “holy ground.” This is the first occurrence in the Old Testament of the root קדשׁ in either an adjectival or noun form. Indeed, only one instance of the related verb is found prior to this text (Gen. 2:3); so Exodus 3 is foundational to thinking about the word. As Costecalde observes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was not called by them a “Holy God,” nor was He worshiped by them at a holy place. God waited until He called Moses and revealed Himself to him to announce to this shepherd that “the mountain of God” was a holy place: אַדַמַת־קֹדֶשׁ, normally translated “holy ground.”

Why did God designate the mountain as a קֹדֶשׁ place? One reason generally given goes as follows. The “holiness” of the place was a barrier that prevented Moses, and later the people, from approaching. The mountain was “taboo” or “a forbidden place.” The presence of God as “the totally other” upon the mountain made the place inaccessible and provoked fear in Moses because of the “holy” character of the mountain. Muilenburg, for example, expresses this view. He states:

The consciousness of the radical cleavage between the human and the divine is rooted in taboo, and is illustrated in the law of the érem (חרם), in which man is forbidden to appropriate what belongs to God, and in the frequent prohibitions against profanation. The holy is unapproachable; man must not “come near” (קרב) to it. Thus Moses must not come near, for the place on which he stands is קדשׁ (Exod. 3:5 J; cf. Josh. 5:15).[8]

This explanation, however, does not account for all the facts given in the text. God does not forbid Moses from approaching the holy ground but only from coming near the bush—the place from which He speaks. The ground designated as holy includes the precise place where Moses stands, not just the bush where Yahweh speaks. In the narrative of Exodus 3:1-6 Moses is given two distinct and separate commands: (1) “Don’t come near here!” and (2) “Remove your sandals because the place where you are standing is holy ground.”[9] The holy ground, then, is much larger than the bush where Yahweh speaks. It follows that the command that forbids Moses to approach does not apply to the ground declared “holy,” but only to the precise spot where Yahweh speaks. The causal clause informing Moses that he is standing on holy ground gives the reason for removing his sandals and is not connected to the command to stay away from the bush.

The “holy ground” (v. 5) encompasses a larger space than just the bush from which God speaks and is, in fact, equivalent to the area designated as “the mountain of God” (v. 1). Moses is standing on a קדשׁ place; there is nothing inaccessible or restricted about approaching there. The mountain of God is not “taboo” or a “forbidden place.” Moreover, it does not inspire fear any more than the bush, which rather provokes curiosity. The fear that seizes Moses in the narrative does not spring from the “sacrosanct” character of the mountain; it is provoked by the shock of the vision of God. This unexpected meeting with God seizes Moses with fright. Verse 6 shows clearly the difference between “fear” and “holy,” because the fear is inspired by the vision of God, not by the holy mountain. It is therefore improper to speak of “holy fear” if language is to be genuinely true to Scripture.

As already noted, “holy ground” appears as a synonym of the “mountain of God.” From the culture of that time there is nothing astonishing about this because at Ugarit, in the fourteenth century before Jesus Christ, Baal dwells on a mountain and “the mountain of Baal” is also called a place qds̆.10 The mountain in Exodus 3:1, however, is called קדשׁ because of the presence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob upon it and not because of a holy character inherent in or proper to the place where Moses stands. In the course of Moses’ vision, it is not so much the place as such that is valued, but the presence of God on it. This is when it becomes remarkable: the mountain is קדשׁ because it is the mountain of God.

Exodus 3, then, provides a meaning for a derivative of the root קדשׁ current in the fourteenth century before Jesus Christ, where the קדשׁ ground is not the place of distance or radical separation, but of meeting and of presence, the meeting of God and man. In standing on the ground that belongs to God, Moses is not called קָדוֹשׁ, but to be allowed to walk there he must submit to the practice of a rite or ritual: remove his sandals. Is this an innovation? Undoubtedly not. The act of removing one’s sandals, as does the nearest relative in Deuteronomy 25:9 and in Ruth 4:7, is a ceremony of de-possession well-known in the culture of that time. The gō’ēl, that is, the nearest relative, removes his sandal to show that he is relinquishing his rights of purchase. Thus Moses must acknowledge that this ground belongs to God and enter into an attitude of consecration. Rather than being marking as set apart, “holy” ground is ground consecrated, devoted, or prepared for the meeting of God and man.

In speaking from the middle of the bush, God manifests His desire to be present in the midst of men. But He presents Himself progressively. First He addresses Moses, who does not dare to look at Him and who is surprised at the time and seized with fear. It is God who takes the initiative in meeting men; He is the one who declares the mountain to be ground קדשׁ. It is not Moses who decides to meet the God of the patriarchs; it is not he who consecrates to this invisible God a particular place. The narrator insists on the divine initiative. It seems that the most suitable translation of קדשׁ in Exodus 3 must be something like “consecrated” or “devoted ground.” God has chosen the place of the meeting; He waits for Moses, and after having “prepared the ground,” He presents Himself to the shepherd and makes him part of His project of salvation.

Exodus 19—Holy Nation

In the next stage in God’s progressive revelation and also in the extension of holiness, Israel has come out of Egypt and is now camped before the mountain in the desert of Sinai (Exod. 19). In the narrative of this episode, the Lord speaks to Moses and commands him to “consecrate” the people (v. 10). Moses obeys. He comes down the mountain, where he has met God and received this communication from Him, and “consecrates” the people (v. 14). In fact, five forms of the root קדשׁ are found in Exodus 19 (vv. 6, 10, 14, 22, 23), making this an important development from Exodus 3.

Several different translations of the verb קַדֵּשׁ have been proposed: “sanctify” (The Original Bible), “cause to sanctify oneself” (New Jerusalem Bible 1973), “consecrate” (Dhorme11), “cause to be holy” (Gilbert12), and “declare holy” (Leenhardt13). We can agree here with the position of Gilbert against that of Leenhardt. The form is in the Piel stem, and the meaning is essentially Intensive-Factitive.14 This has to do with the causation or bringing about of a state: Moses brings the people into a consecrated or holy status.

At this point the notion of “sanctification” is overcharged with a moral sense in many expositions. Such a meaning cannot be justified here by reason of the context. In other respects, the translation “sanctify” the people, the priests, or the mountain, does not adequately convey the sense of the command given by God to Moses. The notion of consecration—more neutral in the first place—is more suitable.

What does God desire? He wants to get ready or prepare a meeting with the people of Israel under certain conditions. He presented Himself first to Moses in a spectacular manner. Before receiving the divine call, Moses must accomplish a rite. Now in Exodus 19, Moses plays the role of intermediary between God and the people. Likewise, in 19:23, Moses receives the order to consecrate (Piel קַדֵּשׁ) the mountain, which has been “delimited” or “marked off.”

Gilbert believes that “the notion of the holy” in 19:22-23 “is closer to the idea of taboo than that which appears in Ex 19:2-13.”[15] The verb קדשׁ, however, in relation to the mountain is in the same stem as in verses 10-14, where it is used in relation to the people. It is difficult to discover a semantic difference between two identical uses of the verb. Furthermore, according to the context, the “ban / interdiction / prohibition” (or the taboo) is not equivalent to consecration: “a consecrated mountain” is not “a forbidden mountain.” The interdiction is a consequence or result of the consecration, it does not define consecration itself. Consecrating the mountain is preparing this place for the coming of God. To do this, Moses must place boundaries there and order the people not to approach it.

Unlike Exodus 3, where God orders the fulfillment of a ritual on a consecrated place, here in Exodus 19 it is Moses who “consecrates” the people (19:10). Thus there is in this text a progression in comparison with the passage in Exodus 3. Moses is no longer a witness of consecration; he actively participates in this consecration. He does not just touch consecrated ground; he consecrates the people in the one case and the delimited mountain in the other.

The meaning of this consecration is defined by the context. In Exodus 3 the “consecrated mountain” appears as a place prepared, having become for a time a divine possession. In chapter 19 a consecrated people are a people ready to meet God, as verse 11 states, “that they may be ready for the third day.” The consecration of the people is a preparation. For Moses—who is clearly the subject of the verb קדשׁ in verse 10—consecrating the people is “to put them in a state to approach God.”[16] This preparation is effected by the practice of a ritual: washing the cloaks, which takes two days (vv. 10-11 and 14-15). According to the sequence of volitives, the washing follows the consecration and appears as a result. An element of purification is certainly present in this text, but one cannot equate consecration and purification in strict terms, and the root טהר (“purify”) is not used.

Are the people consecrated in the same manner as the consecrated mountain? A consecrated people—are they a people who belong to God? It seems that the context confirms this, likewise that the element of preparation predominates. Moses must declare to the people: “Be ready in three days. Don’t come near your wives” (v. 15). This order is certainly given for a precise reason. In “not coming near” their wives, the Israelites are ready “to come near” God. God wants to prepare the people for a very special meeting. Certainly Moses is not establishing a taboo; the text does not say that to have sexual relations is to move away from God. But God desires, for a special occasion, a special consecration. This abstinence is also found in 1 Samuel 21:5.

One discovers the idea of belonging and devotion connected to the notion of consecration at the beginning of Exodus 19, where verses 5-6 affirm clearly the purpose of God, less evident perhaps in verses 10-15 and 22-24. “You will be my personal treasure [sglh, an Amorite term] among all the peoples—since all the earth belongs to me—and you will be for me a royal priesthood and a holy nation” (vv. 5-6). Priests are persons devoted solely to the service of the deity.[17] Israel as a nation קָדוֹשׁ is a nation given access to the presence of Yahweh and devoted solely to the service and worship of the Lord. Moreover the statements in verses 5 and 6 are double. First, the call to be a holy nation is parallel to the call to be a royal priesthood, and second, the two designations “royal priesthood” and “holy nation” together constitute an explanation of what it means to be Yahweh’s personal treasure. The idea of belonging and that of consecration are closely related in these verses; they are also in the verses that follow.

Study of Exodus 19 does not support speaking of “separation,” as some like Leenhardt[18] and Michaeli[19] do, or of an impassable gulf, as Lefevre does, for whom “holiness is the impassable gulf which makes God inaccessible to the creature.”[20] Such meanings are not appropriate to the use of forms of קדשׁ in this text.

The ban on going up on the mountain does not imply a radical separation or barrier between the people and the mountain. On the contrary, the people are invited to participate in the theophany, not simply as spectators, but as consecrated. The place and the people are ready to receive God because they belong to Him. If Moses must fix impassable limits—as God Himself must do for Moses at the time of the burning bush—this is not to establish a radical separation between the people and God, but to indicate the distance that further remains between the people and God and to protect, in a certain manner, the Israelites. There is a gradation: the people are consecrated; they may approach and see, but only Moses and several privileged ones may be enveloped by the cloud. So then, the greater the consecration, the greater is the distance noticeably diminished. Consecration appears correctly in Exodus 19 as the opposite of separation.

In the HSCB notes to Exodus 19:9-25 Coover-Cox observes that the covenant-making at Sinai is compared to a suzerain-vassal treaty in the ancient Near East. She states:

The preparations for a meeting between the Lord and the Israelites continue the extended metaphor that compares the Lord to a great king issuing a covenant to his vassal. The Lord had chosen to come to Mount Sinai in a way designed to reveal His presence and to communicate with the Israelites, making it “private property,” where no one should expect to wander in and out oblivious to the wishes of the owner. For as long as the Lord visited that place, it was holy ground, an extension of His royal court. Coming there required a royal summons. It was not a casual meeting of equals.[21]

Isaiah 6—Yahweh As Holy

If “holy” means essentially “consecrated” or “devoted,” what then does it mean to apply this adjective to God? How is He consecrated or devoted? Isaiah 6 helps answer these questions.

Outline of Isaiah 6:1-13

I. Vision of Yahweh (6:1-4) 

II. Response of Isaiah (6:5-7) 

III. Commission of the Prophet (6:8-13)

God Is Awesome

Certain aspects of this text depict God as awesome and transcendent. Isaiah begins by saying that he saw the Lord (אֲ'דנָי), sitting upon a throne high and lifted up. God is exalted; He is the High King; the edges of His robe filled the temple (6:1). This not only expresses the awesome greatness of God but also clearly indicates that Isaiah was prostrate on the ground; this is why he could see only the edges or hem of God’s robe. This vision of God is similar to the theophany granted to the nobles of Israel when the covenant with Israel was ratified on Mount Sinai in Exodus 24. The nobles saw the God of Israel, but all that they reported seeing is bright blue lapis lazuli bricks under His feet (v. 10). They, too, were flat on the ground and were so awestruck that their eyes were raised no higher than the paving stones under God’s feet.

Isaiah 6:3 says further that the glory of the Lord filled the earth. When the tabernacle was completed in Exodus 40, a bright cloud designated as the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (vv. 34-35). Likewise, when Solomon built and dedicated the temple, the glory of the Lord filled the temple (1 Kings 8:10-11). Here in Isaiah’s vision, the glory of the Lord fills the earth. This indicates that the entire earth is His sanctuary, or temple, and that He rules the whole world. The seraphim describe Him, and whatever they are, their name means “burning ones.” They are beings of fire. In addition, the foundations of the door-posts shake and the place is filled with smoke. Earthquake, fire, and smoke clearly speak of the God of Sinai. In Abram’s vision in Genesis 15:17 God reveals Himself by means of a smoking firepot and blazing torch. In Exodus 3:2, which is a foretaste and precursor to Sinai, He reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush. According to Exodus 19:16-19 God came on Mount Sinai accompanied by earthquake, fire, and smoke. He appeared similarly to Ezekiel in chapter 1 in clouds and fire. In Daniel 7:9-10, “his throne was flaming with fire and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him” (NIV). There is no question that the lord whom Isaiah saw is the God who made the covenant with Israel at Sinai.

God Is Holy

The concept that God is holy is not new. This idea is found before Isaiah’s time (Lev. 11:44-45; 20:3, 7, 26; Josh. 24:19; 1 Sam. 6:20; Ps. 22:4). Nonetheless, Isaiah’s favorite term for God is the Holy One of Israel/Jacob. He uses this term some 26 times; outside of the Book of Isaiah it is found only six times. The vision of God given to Isaiah at the beginning of his life and ministry as a prophet profoundly affected his life and radically shaped his message and ministry. Though recognition of Yahweh as a Holy God is not new, what is new is the particular message that God gives to Isaiah in verses 8-13.

In Isaiah 6 it is when God appears to the prophet that Isaiah hears the voice of the seraphim proclaiming the holiness of the Lord. This declaration accompanies the coming of God among men in the temple and attests His presence in the place of consecration. God appears in the place that belongs to Him, the sanctuary, but He does not stay in the holy of holies, the place that is most consecrated. Instead He lets Himself be seen by men in the front room of the temple, the great hall. This is evident from two or three facts in the text. The Hebrew word used here is הֵיכָל. In 1 Kings 6-8, the passage describing the construction of the temple, the word בַּיִת or “house” is used for the temple as a whole, which is divided into two rooms: the front room or great hall is called the הֵיכָל and elsewhere the holy place; the back room is called the דְּבִיר and later the holy of holies.[22] In Isaiah 6 the Lord is not in the דְּבִיר, or holy of holies, He is in the הֵיכָל, the front room, the great hall of His palace. Note that the standard term for the temple as a whole, בַּיִת, is used in verse 4 and clearly contrasts with הֵיכָל in verse 1.

Secondly, Isaiah says that the bases of the doorposts shook. This makes it absolutely clear that the Lord is in the front room, because Isaiah is at the doorway and would not have been able to see into the back room from the doorway. So while God is awesome in His majesty, His holiness does not mean that He is the “Totally Other,” nor does it speak of His separation. Just the opposite in fact—here God is coming to meet man (as in Exodus 3), which fits the central theme of this new section of Isaiah: Immanuel, that is, “God with us.”

Role Of The Seraphim

In addition, Isaiah sees the seraphim in his vision. It is as important to note what he does not see as to note what he does see. He sees seraphim and not cherubim. Normally images of the cherubim guarded access to the presence of God in the garden and the temple. Their wings protected the mercy seat of the ark, and they were on the curtains guarding the holy of holies. What is intended by the fact that Isaiah sees seraphim instead of cherubim? The English word “seraphim” is, in fact, not of English origin, but rather a loanword from Hebrew based on a rough transliteration of the plural form of the word שָׂרָק.

The word “saraph” is rare in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs in Numbers 21:6 and 8 and refers to fiery snakes, or serpents, that struck the Israelites. It also refers to a fiery snake in Deuteronomy 8:15, Isaiah 14:29, and 30:6. In the occurrences in Isaiah 14 and 30 the seraphim are specifically designated as winged serpents, which clearly connects them to the instances in Isaiah 6.[23] Finally we have the two occurrences in Isaiah 6 for a total of seven instances in the entire Hebrew Bible. Probably the word was transliterated instead of translated because the translators did not see how the seraphim here could be connected to the other occurrences where the word refers to snakes.

Just because they have feet, hands, and faces, however, does not mean that they cannot be snakes.[24] Pictures of winged snakes from both Egypt and Syria show them with feet, hands, and faces. According to Isaiah 14:29, a winged seraph is a symbol of a future Hebrew king. In fact, Hebrew seals, some of them royal, have winged snakes on them.[25]

If this interpretation is regarded as far-fetched, recall 2 Kings 18:4, a passage that describes King Hezekiah’s efforts to rid the temple worship of idols and idolatrous objects. One item mentioned is the bronze snake, the “saraph” made by Moses, which by this time had become an object of idolatrous worship to which the Israelites burned incense. Since Hezekiah became king in 715, this bronze snake was in the temple at the time of King Uzziah’s death in 740, when Isaiah was given this vision.

The seraphim constitute a direct allusion to Numbers 21:6, 8. Their purpose and role in the vision is to remind Isaiah and readers of when the Israelites complained in the desert about God’s great provisions in food and water. By complaining about His provision for them, the people were in reality saying that God was not completely devoted, and so they impugned His holiness. The people of Isaiah’s time were promoting a society full of social injustice and saying that God should hurry up and bring the day of judgment that He promised (Isa. 5:18-19). In this way they were saying He was not devoted to His justice and so impugned His holiness. Thus there is a clear parallel between the people of Isaiah’s time and the people who journeyed through the desert.

Such a meaning for “holy” is entirely consonant with uses of the word connected to Israel’s journey through the desert. Numbers 20:10-13 is an example: “So Moses took the staff from the Lord’s presence, just as he commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, ‘Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?’ Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank. But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.’ These were the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites quarreled with the Lord and where he was proved holy among them” (NIV).

Moses’ and Aaron’s act of disobedience did not treat Yahweh as holy—as completely devoted to the job of bringing the people out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. Even so, the actions of Yahweh did demonstrate precisely the fact that He was fully consecrated and devoted to His promise and task.

Another example similar to this is Isaiah 63:10, which recalls that during the journey through the wilderness the people of Israel grieved God’s holy spirit. The term “spirit” speaks of someone as he or she is empowered,[26] and in the context, it is the messenger of His presence who mediated God’s care for the people in providing protection from cold and heat through the cloud and also food and water. Yet the people constantly questioned that God was devoted to His promise to bring them through and complained about His care and provisions for them.

In the vision of Isaiah, the seraphim cover themselves as a sign of respect and submission, and Isaiah is conscious of his impurity. He is not ready to meet God: he is a man of unclean lips, and he dwells in the midst of a people of unclean lips; he ought not to see the King, the Lord of Armies. The fear that inspires Isaiah is not a fear of holiness. He does not say, “My eyes have seen the Holy One,” but rather, “My eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of Armies.” As in Exodus 3, it is not the holiness of God that inspires fear, but the vision of God Himself. In seeing God, the prophet dreads to be crushed by the majesty of the Sovereign King, and once purified, he does not hesitate to meet God in verse 8.

The fact that the word “holy” is repeated three times is not related to the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity; it is simply a form of extreme emphasis in the Hebrew language (cf. Jer. 7:4, “temple”; Jer. 22:29, “land”; Ezek. 21:27 [Heb. 32], “ruin”; and Isa. 6:3, 4, “holy”).

What does it mean for Yahweh to be called holy? Hermeneutics requires, surely, above all, attention to the context. And the context that is determinative for Isaiah 6 is found in chapter 5, where literary analysis demonstrates the centrality of verse 16:[27]

[15] So humanity is humbled and mankind is brought low, and the eyes of the haughty will be brought low, 
[16] but the Lord of Hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.[28]

Now in Isaiah 6:3, the repetition of the word three times means that God is absolutely holy. “Holy” means that He is completely devoted and in this particular context, devoted to His justice and righteousness, which characterizes His instruction of the people of Israel in the covenant, showing them not only what it means to be devoted to Him but also what it means to treat each other in a genuinely human way, in short, social justice. The holiness of God is clearly seen in Isaiah 5:16.

Isaiah’s response confirms the understanding that the basic meaning of holiness is being devoted. Holiness is not identical with moral purity, although there is a connection. Holiness should not be defined as moral purity, but rather purity is the result of being completely devoted to God as defined by the covenant. When he sees the vision of the Lord and hears the chorus of the seraphim, Isaiah cries out, “Woe is me, I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.” Isaiah does not say that he is impure or that the people are impure. He says that his lips and the lips of the people are impure. This refers to all his words and to all the words of the people. These words stand in contrast to the words of the seraphim. Isaiah and the people cannot participate in the worship led by the seraphim. The confession of unclean lips is the reason for the cry, “Woe is me, for I am ruined / I am undone.” The verb translated “undone” can also be translated, “Woe is me, for I am silenced.”[29] Because his lips and the lips of the covenant people are filled with words challenging God’s justice and impugning His holiness, they are unclean and not able to join in the chorus of worship with the seraphim. They have been silenced and may not join the true worship of God. One can and ought to apply this to the church and consider whether the church’s failure to implement God’s righteous standards may silence worship.

An action from one of the seraphim brings about cleansing of his speech and atonement. One of the seraphim takes a burning coal from the altar using tongs and brings it to Isaiah and causes it to touch his lips. What is used to purify Isaiah is exactly what is promised to the people of Judah as a whole in 1:31, 5:5, and 6:13—fire. Thus, the purification of Isaiah is a forecast or harbinger of the coming judgment that will purify the people as a whole. The atonement is also an act of divine grace. The fire comes from the altar. This indicates that atonement is made by sacrifice and not by achievements on the part of Isaiah.

God Is King

It is important to remember that behind the human king in Israel stands the real king, Yahweh Himself. Near the end of Samuel’s life the people desired a king like the nations surrounding them (1 Sam. 8:5-7). This is a human wielding absolute power for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. The Lord told Samuel, “It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.” When God made the covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, the purpose of this covenant was for the king to fulfill the earlier plan prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. The Israelite king must represent the divine King. And that is precisely the point in both Isaiah 6:1 and 6:5. Isaiah was given this vision in the year that King Uzziah died (v. 1). At such a time there would be a change of regime. It might be an opportunity for those falsely imprisoned to be retried and released under the dawning of a new era of social justice. The title given in verse 5 to Yahweh is not simply a statement that Yahweh is king. In fact the Lord is referred to in the usual way in which the human kings in Israel are referred to in 1 and 2 Kings. It is like saying, “in the year that President Obama finished his second term of office I saw the real president, the Lord of Armies.”

Commission

Isaiah heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8). Why did the Lord use the plural? Why did He say, “Who will go for us?” What does this mean? This does not mean that the faith of Israel was in many gods, nor is it a remnant of an old polytheism. It is not even an indication of the Trinity, which is not clearly revealed until the coming of Jesus Christ. It is an expression that would have been understood in the ancient Near East to refer to the fact that the heavenly King was speaking in the divine court or council and Isaiah the prophet was given access to that council. It indicates that Isaiah was an authorized agent who really did know the mind and will of God and was commissioned to bring it to the people.

The commission Isaiah was given seems strange. The people will really hear but not gain insight. They will really see but not know at all. Their heart, the center of the place where they feel, think, and make decisions will not be granted insight or understanding. It seems crazy to send a person on a mission that will fail. It seems cold and hard-hearted to prevent repentance and restoration. Yahweh is, however, describing for Isaiah not the content of his message but (by way of metonymy) the effect and results of his preaching. It will harden hearts (vv. 9-10), and it will lead to the devastation of the land and the people (vv. 11-12). The reason for this is clear. The people have already rejected the divine message. The first five chapters of Isaiah detail their arrogance and indifference. The result of Isaiah’s preaching will be to confirm the response they have already made and to bring about the judgment that has already been predicted. These verses, then, show that judgment is certain and inevitable and there will be no situation like Jonah’s preaching to Nineveh, where the people repented and God reversed the judgment. These verses are also a reminder that the results of preaching and witness are in God’s hands, and not the messenger’s.

It is now possible to explain why the encounter opens with a vision of God’s transcendence. Why is it that at the beginning Isaiah sees Yahweh as exalted and awesome? He sees Yahweh as high and exalted because He is beyond manipulation. He sees Yahweh sitting on His throne for judgment, and there will be no possibility for influencing this to anyone’s advantage. It is clear from the outset that no one is in a palsy-walsy situation with this judge, and no one has the means to reach Him and influence His mind on the verdict. All must await His sentence. He is truly above and beyond everyone. Sentence has been passed on the nation in heaven; Isaiah’s preaching will put it into effect on earth.

And yet there is a hope, even though it is extremely slender. This is expressed in verse 13. At first the picture of judgment is bleak. After the devastation and death only a tenth will remain. And even this surviving tenth will be subjected to further judgment. There are a number of problems in this verse and scholars differ greatly on the details.[30] The general picture, however, is roughly the same. It may refer to two great trees just outside one of the gates of Jerusalem which were burned. All that was left was the blackened trunk and branches stripped bare. It seemed that the tree was dead and could only be cut down and the stump taken out. And yet there was life and new growth came. In the Old Testament, kings or kingdoms are pictured as majestic, tall, stately trees (for example, Ezek. 31; Dan. 9). The Davidic dynasty seems to be a tree that is dead. And yet, somehow, out of this trunk will spring new life and the promises of God will be fulfilled. We see here the messianic hope of Isaiah. It may be that true Israel will be reduced to one faithful person before the rebuilding process begins.

Conclusion

This is only the beginning of a fresh study of the word “holy” in the Old Testament. Interestingly, if one begins to analyze the counterpart in Greek, the word ἅγιος, the basic meaning given is also “devoted.”[31] This needs close attention.

Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology states that “God’s holiness means that he is separated from sin and devoted to seeking his own honor.”[32] Further reading yields a discussion that is traditional, so that the use of the word “devoted” in his opening sentence is confused with the notion of separation. Indeed, systematic theologians of the last five hundred years have not been helpful in explaining what Scripture teaches on this topic due to reliance on doubtful etymologies and connection of the term with moral purity and divine transcendence. Purity is a result of being holy in the biblical sense, but is not the meaning of the word. Nor is the word connected with divine transcendence, however much this idea is otherwise made plain in Scripture.[33]

The basic meaning of the word is “consecrated” or “devoted.” In Scripture it operates within the context of covenant relationships and expresses commitment. The notion of divine transcendence in Isaiah 6 is there to demonstrate that the holiness of Yahweh—His dedication to social justice in this particular situation—cannot be manipulated, and judgment is certain. That explains the coincidence of holiness and divine transcendence in this text.

One day in the barnyard, the hen and the pig were discussing the difference in meaning between the words “involvement” and “commitment.” The pig told the hen, “When the farmer comes for breakfast tomorrow, you’re only involved, but I’m committed.” The cross is a revelation of the divine holiness.

Notes

1. Translations of Scripture in this article are the writer’s, unless noted otherwise.
2. Connections between the term “holy” and the events of the Exodus are explored below in sections about the calling of Moses in Exodus 3 and the calling of Israel in Exodus 19.
3. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. Volume 3: The Divine Essence and Attributes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 499.
4. W. W. Baudissin, “Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT,” in Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Fr. Wilh. Grunow, 1878).
5. T. E. McComiskey states, “The suggestion that the root qdsh is derived from an original biliteral qd (“cut”) is attractive but tenuous. . . . The meaning “to separate” is favored by many scholars, but the fact that qdsh rarely, if ever, occurs in a secular sense makes any positive conclusion in this regard difficult because of the limited evidence on which to base philological comparison” (“קָדַשׁ [qādash],” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke [Chicago: Moody, 1908], 2:786-87).
6. Claude Bernard Costecalde, Aux origines du sacré biblique (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1986).
7. Claude Bernard Costecalde, “Sacré ” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément Tome, vol. 10 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1985), columns 1346-1415.
8. J. Muilenburg, “Holiness,” in TheInterpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 2:618.
9. The sentences are asyndetic rather than connected by waw.
10. G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, Handbook of Oriental Studies 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 695, where qds̆ is attributed to the citadel of Baal = “the mountain of Baal,” in KTU 1.16.I:7, 1.16.II:46.
11. E. Dhorme, L’Évolution Religieuse d’Israël. Vol. 1: La Religion des Hébreux Nomades (Brussels: Nouvelle Société d’Éditions, 1937), 309.
12. Maurice Gilbert, “Le Sacré dans l’Ancien Testament,” in L’Expression du Sacré dans les Grandes Religions, ed. Julien Ries, Herbert Sauren, et al. (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983), 1:210-211.
13. Franz-J. Leenhardt, La Notion de Sainteté dans l’Ancien Testament (Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1929), 44.
14. See E. Jenni, Das hebräische Pi‛el: Syntaktisch-semasiologische Untersuchung einer Verbalform im Alten Testament (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1968), and idem, “Aktionsarten und Stammformen im Althebräischen: Das Pi‛el in verbesserter Sicht,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13/1 (2000): 67-90, and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).
15. Gilbert, “Le Sacré dans l’Ancien Testament,” 1:263.
16. Georges Auzou, De la Servitude au Service: Étude du Livre de l’Exode (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1961), 254. Auzou’s words in the original are as follows: “« Sanctifier » ou « consacrer », v. 10, c’est mettre en état d’approcher Dieu.”
17. A full treatment of the details and exegetical issues can be found in Peter J. Gentry and Steven Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
18. Leenhardt, La Notion de Sainteté dans l’Ancien Testament, 19-23.
19. Frank Michaeli, Le Livre de l’Exode (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1974), 166.
20. A. Lefèvre, “Saint est le Seigneur,” in Grands Thèmes Bibliques, ed. M. E. Boismard et al. (Paris: Éditions de Feu Nouveau, 1958), 52. Lefèvre’s own words are as follows: “La sainteté est l’abîme infranchissable qui rend Dieu inaccessible à la créature.”
21. Dorian G. Coover-Cox, “Exodus,” in HCSB Study Bible, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Jeremy Royal Howard (Nashville: Holman, 2010), 131.
22. For הֵיכָל see 1 Kings 6:5, 17; 7:50; and הֵיכַל הַבַּיִת in 1 Kings 6:3. For דְּבִיר see 1 Kings 6:5, 16, 19-23, 31; 7:49, 8:6, 8. The term for the whole, בַּיִת, occurs approximately 46 times in 1 Kings 6-8. The דְּבִיר is also designated as the “holy of holies” in 1 Kings 6:16, 8:6. The הֵיכָל is designated as the “holy place” in 1 Kings 8:8, 10.
23. Annals from King Esarhaddon of Assyria describe his journey across the desert, and in the same spot where Israel encountered the fiery snakes, he mentions strange creatures with batting wings (James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955], 292b).
24. Out of respect the seraphim cover their faces with one of their three pairs of wings and their feet with another pair. It is possible that the context may require the meaning “pudenda” for feet here (HALOT, s.v. רֶגֶל), so that covering the feet means “covering their genitals.” According to Exodus 20:26; 28:42, Israelite priests contrasted with priests in the ancient Near East in that they were not to expose themselves in worship of Yahweh. The action of the seraphim may be similar to this.
25. For interpretation of the seraphim as snakes, see K. R. Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 410-15; J. J. M. Roberts, “Solomon’s Jerusalem and Zion Tradition,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 165-66, especially H. Cazelles, “La Vocation d’Isaie (Ch. 6) et le Rites Royaux,” in Homenaje a Juan Prado, ed. L. Alvarez Verdes and E. J. Alonso Hernandez (Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1975), 89-108, and Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84/85; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977). See for example images 11 and 127 in Nahman Avigad, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, rev. Benjamin Sass (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997). Image 11 definitely belonged to a royal personage in Israel. See also Benjamin Sass and Christoph Uehlinger, eds., Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125 (Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg/Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1993).
26. Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 32-39; James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Indwelling Presence (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006), 39-40; and idem, “God with Men in the Torah,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 113-33.
27. See Peter J. Gentry, “Isaiah and Social Justice,” Journal of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary 12 (Spring 2013): 1-15.
28. Translation that of H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27 (New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 1:356-57.
29. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed., edited by W. Baumgartner, J. J. Stamm, and B. Hartmann (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967-1995), s.v. I דמם and III דמם.
30. For a thorough treatment of the problems in the text, see Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 41-44.
31. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. with revised supplement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), s.v. ἅγιος.
32. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 203.
33. Although holiness and transcendence are both in the context of Isaiah 6, it is false to assume that they are equivalent. They are connected or related in that the one who is devoted to social justice is the supreme judge and cannot be bribed, bought off, or overpowered.