Jude Part 3 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
WORD SET TO MUSIC
SILENCE

Jude Part III
September 11th 2016
Meat
Okay, we left off last week reading all about the ways of these who had crept into the church and we are told by Jude about their ways through his telling of three situations taken from scripture or ancient writings –

The situation of the COI being led out of Egyptian bondage by God but then turning back on Him and not believing, the situation of angels leaving their first estate, and the situation existing in the hearts of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.

After bringing these three situations up Jude wrote at verse 8

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers (we might add, “also) defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Then Jude continues on at verse 9 – our text for today, saying

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Alright, after having described the sin nature of these who crept into the church with lasciviousness and denials of Jesus Jude gives us a comparison (in my estimation to provide an acceptable attitude) and says

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke thee.”

Now, this little reference is one reason the epistle is considered spurious because . . .

This citation is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Therefore it is believed to have originated from a Jewish fable OR something that was once in the Old Testament is now missing – the latter being less likely than the former.

And if from a fable was he inspired to include it in this letter – and if not inspired than we open up a whole can of worms relative to the Word being word perfect, totally inspired, etc.

Now Peter (in his second epistle, chapter 2:2) made a general reference to angels as “not bringing railing accusations against others before the Lord,” (you might remember this from our verse by verse of Peter) but Jude refers to a particular case of angelic humility – and apparent event where Michael the arc-angel “contended about the body of Moses.”

The word contended here is very different from the word used in verse three of this letter when he commends his reader to contend earnestly for the faith.

That word, you will remember, was EPAGO-NIZ-ZOM-AHEE and meant to wrestle. Here the word translated contending (as in “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil”)
is diakrino and it means to separate from, clearly cutting through a matter by judging it worthy of division.

So the angel Michael did NOT wrestle with the devil in an effort to overcome him but clearly parted ways with him.

However, according to the passage, Michael did express his views and reasons as we read:

“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses . . .”

The Greek for disputed is “DE-AL-EGG OM-AHEE” which means to say something thoroughly and he finishes by adding

And durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke thee.”

Taking all the meaning of the words we learn from Jude that Michael, the head of all angelic messengers

“separated with the devil after thoroughly explaining himself and did not even bring a railing accusation against him but instead placed all judgment in the hands of God and said, “the Lord judge you.”

Whether this is a myth or Jewish fable I appreciate it and love the tenor of Michael expressed herein – that even in a debate with Satan himself he merely expressed the full message but withheld railing accusations against the evil one and only said:

“The Lord judge you.” This is a remarkable way in my book – evidenced apparently by a heavenly messenger of tremendous power.

That’s the key to it – it was Michael the arc-angel doing the humble response. We are talking about an angel that did NOT go the way of Satan, who kept his first estate and had every reason to rail on this fallen being – but did not.

Really quite profound.

Now, the ways the presence of this reference have been addressed are various and wide but the main ones include:

I.that this is a reference to a passage in Zechariah 3:1 where we read:

“And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan,”

This sounds pretty reasonable. But as we mentioned in our study of II Peter objections to this are obvious:

(1.) the only similarity between the two passages are the expression, “the Lord rebuke thee.”

(2.) The name Michael does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah.

(3.) There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” there (nor any allusion to it) nor any allusion to there being a contention over the body.

Finally the reason of the resistance which Satan received from the angel in the vision seen by Zechariah is said – it was in regard to the consecration of Joshua to the office of high priest which implied a return of prosperity to Jerusalem and the restoration of the worship of God.

To this Satan was against and the vision represents him as resisting the angel in his purpose thus to set him apart to that office.

These reasons seem to make it clear that Jude did not refer to the passage in Zechariah, nor is there any other place in the Old Testament to which it can be supposed he had reference.

Then some believe that Jude’s reference is here (as well as what we will read in verse 14) is taken from a prophecy of Enoch which could have been taken from an apocryphal book existing in that time.

And while though those books contained fables it is said that the apostle appealed to them but not suggesting that what was said in them was true but it was just an example his audience would have recognized.

According to this view Jude didn’t vouch for the truth of the story, but merely to make use of it in argument.

The objection to this is that it seems like he refers to the exchange between Michael and the devil as true. I’m not so quick to see this. It could be simply that he referred to a known cultural example that all would understand to make his point.

And yet another postulation is that there actually was a book that was true that has since been lost that contained such a story. I personally like this view most of all. And there is evidence in the writings of Origen to support it.

By the way, the term “archangel” is only used one more time in scripture – archae-anggelos – and it means the first or primary messenger or angel.

After having given us an example to consider on how to be Jude returns to those who are the subject of his epistle and says:

10 But these . . . speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

In other words Michael, the primary angel of heaven did not speak any railing accusations against even the Devil himself but merely left the judgement up to God “but these speak evil of those things which they know not.”

And here we are given another insight into the importance of our words, the things we say, the words we let out of our mouths.

The lesson is seen between the arc-anggelos Michael holding his tongue against the devil whom he would have had first hand experience with and “these . . . these . . . these.”

“false and corrupt teachers.”

Now I don’t know if you have seen the irony yet but there is one to be seen – whether or not its explainable is another matter – but there is some irony here in the fact that Jude highlights the noble fact that even Michael the arc-angel withheld delivering a railing accusation against Satan himself when in dispute over the body of Moses but . . .

Jude does not himself withhold the same in accusing this targeted group. I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why but I find it a bit ironic that he is applauding Michael for merely saying to Satan, “the Lord rebuke thee,” but he doesn’t say the same to these creepers.

Oh well.

What Jude now says it that where they are uniformed on the things they rail against they are only informed on matters that relate to their natural state – things of the flesh we might presume.

In other words, the idea seems to be that these were limited in their knowledge to things of the flesh.

For me it is a fascinating experience to run into carnal sorts whose only insights are to the things of the flesh. Every now and again I go and pick up day laborers to help with one task or another and it’s sort of a crap shoot when it comes to who you get in the car with you.

But I am always fascinated by those who have an interest and allegiance to God and those who have no knowledge of Him or anything of the Spirit. In almost every situation I would describe the natural men as less stable, not as capable or as reliable of workers, and sometimes less intelligent as those who care about the things of God.

It’s not that they are – but their approach to life appears so unrefined, sordid, and weak.

Anyway Jude says that these did not have their conversation on high or holy objects. Apparently they were uncapable of even understanding them – but they were certainly willing to rip and rail on them.

So he says:

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

So, as a means to once again make a comparison to these false corrupt believers Jude once again appeals to the Old Testament.

In the first part of the letter he likens them to the COI who stopped believing and yearned for their ways under bondage to the Egyptians, in the second comparison he likens them to angels who gave up their first estate, and then finally he likens them to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, he likens them to specific characters out from the same period of scriptural history – and he says:

“For they have gone in the way of Cain.”
“And ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward”
“and perished in the gainsaying of Korah”

Gone the way of . . .
Ran Greedily after . . .
And perished in the . . .

Cain,
Balaam,
and Korah.

Let’s talk about going “the way of Cain.”

It’s an intriguing accusation because we really have to resort to deductive conjecture to know what this might mean. In other words we know that Cain

Was disobedient, envious, rebellious, jealous and got to the point where he committed murder. He seemed to possess a spirit of murder or at least hatred and in some of these ways at least we discover the heart of these of whom he speaks.

“And ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward.”

The word rendered ran greedily is ekkheo and it means to “pour out,” which is really a description of gushing passion – they rush tumultuously on an object, that is, that they give themselves up to anything that promised reward.

All restraint lost when it came to getting gain in a manner that Jude says was “after the error of Balaam for reward.”

Balaam was an Old Testament prophet who had some knowledge of the true God and had a reputation that said if Balaam blessed a person they would be blessed but if he cursed you you would be cursed.

Long story short Balaam was asked by Balak to curse Israel but when he couldn’t (for God would not let him) he devised another approach where Balak might be successful. The “doctrine of Balaam”
(spoken of in Revelation 2:14) is in allusion to the fact that it was through the teaching of Balaam that Balak learned the way by which the Israelites might be led into sin.

It is believed that this was the sin of the Nico-ahl-ee-tace whom Christ says, He hates.

“And perished in the gainsaying of Core.”

It seems that their perishing is so certain that Jude writes as if it had already occurred.

Now Core was an Old Testament character who seemed to presumptuously seek to rule in and through the priesthood – actually to overtake the authority of Moses and Aaron and in the end he and all of his house were swallowed when the earth opened up and took him and all his house.

In other words Korah perished and so will these who are like him in their disregard for what is in all probability apostolic authority.

It is at this point, having clearly established the faults and failures of these who crept in unawares, Jude unleashes a tirade against them and their ways giving us five very poetic and frightening lines describing them which are (at verse 12):

That they are . . .

spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear:
clouds they are without water, carried about of winds;
trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; (verse 13)
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear:

The word used by Peter here in the Greek is SPEE-LAS and the translated word spot or blemish is not the best as SPEE-LAS means a rock or outcropping ledge in the sea or even a cliff.

The term spot or blemish speaks of their sticking up or out from the rest of the surrounding terrain – like a rock outcropping in the sea that would seem to pop up out of nowhere and sink a ship.

So the idea here seems to be not that they were “spots and blemishes” in their sacred feasts but that they were like hidden rocks to a seafarer. And just as such rocks would the cause a shipwreck so would these false teachers cause the shipwreck of others faith.

They were as dangerous in the church as hidden rocks are in the ocean.

They are rocks in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear:

Feasts of charity probably refers to gatherings believers would have in the early church where they would have communion and/or eat food together.

They were called feasts of love or festivals of love because they were established by the life and good news of Christ which were founded on love and also over the fact that the believers would gather in and enhance the love that they had for each other.

It has been taught that the reference here is to festivals which were subsequently called Agapae where immediately after taking the Lord’s supper or communion they would have a great meal.

Such a feast is alluded to by Paul in 1st Corinthians 11:17-34 but in that situation Paul reproves them for what was happening as they seemed to have taken the Lord’s Communion and turned it into a Bacchanalian event.

All this really seems to speak to is that the Christians of the day would get together and eat and or get together and just feast upon each other’s love for one another, and these men who crept in unawares posed no small threat to their well-being.

And the line, “Feeding themselves without fear,” seems to mean that they would take what was a proper gathering – either for communion, for communal love or both and they would turn it into their own festival of carnality, feasting (eating and drinking) without fear.

So there is the first invective. Second:

“Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; “

We mentioned that in that arid land there were few more frustrating things than to see big fluffy clouds coming and overhead and to watch them pass – without providing any rain.

Therefore, to call a person a cloud without water was a tremendous insult as they appeared to have the ability and intent to refresh but in the end the only wound up disappointing.

Carried about of winds is interesting because wind is often, in scripture pneuma but not here – its anemos – meaning the plain old wind with “carried about” being “perifero” so were are talking about moved all over by every wind of doctrine, the exact same Greek words Paul uses in Ephesians 4:14.

In other words they were as dangerous as a hidden rock outcropping under the sea and as a wind whipped as waterless clouds. (verse 13)

Trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Pretty much the same idea as clouds without water or as Peter said, “wells without water.”

Bottom line – wells and clouds without water both have the appearances of bearing truth (fruit) but were in reality incapable of providing anything good. So were these.

Jesus showed distain for such when coming from Bethany say a beautiful fig tree with healthy fat leaves but as he grew closer discovered it bore no fruit – and He cursed it – and it immediately withered and died.

This was emblematic of the part of the Nation of Israel that had outward appeal
But inwardly was full of dead dried bones.

The idea goes all the way back to the fall – the pretense is not appreciated by God but appears to be the way of this world.

Remember – Adam and Eve fell and seeing they were naked tried to hide behind the pretense of a suit of fig leaves.
But underneath it all was nothing but sin seeking to hide.

Because Jude calls these men “trees who fruit whithereth I tend to see them as once having bore fruit – or once being Christian – but now the fruit is corrupt.
In fact, the Greek translated whithereth is not found anywhere else in scripture – “fithin-op-o-ree-nos” – and it means autumnal – in other words a tree stripped of leaves and fruit.

The image which seems to have been before the mind of Jude in this expression, is that of the naked trees of autumn as contrasted with the bloom of spring and the dense foliage of summer.

In the first line he calls them tree whose fruit is autumnal and then he repeats without fruit – which I take to mean it was fruit that had fallen off to the ground and was trampled under the foot of man.

This passage is really, really interesting to me with the icing being the next phrase – twice dead.

Applying it to the imagery of trees it seems it is saying that the tree has existed over two seasons (or two winters and springs) and is therefore never going to show signs of life.

But applying it to the souls he is describing I take it as them having been dead in sin once, being revived by the faith, then dying again to it – a death where there doesn’t seem to be any escape from punishment – a punishment he has been intimating since his letter began. The finality of their state is enhanced by the last line:

“Plucked up by the roots.”

There is a poetic progression presented here, in my estimation.

“These are dangerous rocks among you –
who feed themselves without fear.”

They are all about themselves.

“They are clouds they are without water, carried about of winds . . .”

They may appear to have something to offer but they have nothing. They have no moorings – they are carried here and there by a blowing wind.

Then he shifts to them as barren trees – a wind has more strength then they and he says . . .

“trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;”

The wind has blown them over so violently that they have been entirely removed from the soil – they whole person is removed from the roots to the crown of the head.

To me these are physical descriptions of their Christian person – there is nothing left in them of value.

And then he describes their dark spiritual state in our last verse, saying

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Jude has described them as blown and moved by the wind – and now he described them again – but this time not being a product of their own blown over BY THE WIND but a product of the wind – raging waves.

With the exception of seismic shifts waves are almost always the product of wind.

A fruit tree has a nourishing purpose on earth – it provides food. But a raging wave is typically only appreciated by ocean sport people – to everyone else they are upsetting, disruptive, and can be frighteningly destructive.

The really serve little purpose in the human experience but to temporarily entertain – then they disappear forever once they have broken on shore.

To add even more uselessness to these waves Jude calls them raging or agrios – wild.

So they are even more unpredictable, even more dangerous, and even more useless for good on earth. A wild wave is perhaps one of the most useless destructive element in nature.

Fortunately, they are very short lived – something else Jude seems to want to tell us. But before they end they crash and in the crash, in their destruction, all they leave behind is foam.

The term means to “foam upon” as through vile passion. So what Jude seems to be saying is they roar, and drive by and upset and wipe things out but all that is left of them once their spouting ends is a product like the foam of the sea created by a roaring wave.

It is a shameful end of something that once posed such a threat. And so it is with these noisy and vaunting teachers and what they impart is as unsubstantial and valueless in the end as the foam of the ocean wave.

This evinces their shame.

And then at this point, with their earthlife amounting to nothing but the foam a wave produces he seems to touch on the afterlife state of such deceivers, saying that they are:

“Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”

The word for wandering comes from the root word for planet – but it is given erratic action and so we read “wandering star (which could be wandering planets”).

I personally think this is how Jude describes their afterlife state – they were without stability and wander about – a description taken from early astronomers who seems to think that there were stars and heavenly bodies that roamed aimlessly through the heavens.

This view changed when Cicero discovered that such planets actually had a course projected and protested that they were ever described as wandering.

Whatever it was the idea is that these were like stars that have no regular or fixed orbits.

It’s an apt description of these lascivious teachers who denied God and Jesus.

No dependence can be placed on them to consistently teach sound principles to others.

Jude concludes with:

“To whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”

Of course we know that Peter uses the same language. And while the language is very powerful in the King James, and fits all, the ideas that have been encouraged and maintained over the years the literal translations do not bring so much drama but say, from the Greek:

“to whom the gloom of the darkness to the age hath been kept.”

Contextually, though less dramatic, this make description is much more accurate.

The age of the Nation of Israel was about to end. Those false teachers would exit this world and enter the gloom of darkness until the age has been kept or fulfilled.

Then hell – the pit of darkness – would give up its dead – and all would exit it and face the great white throne judgment – and those whose names are not written in the Lambs book of Life would be cast into the lake of fire (which is in the presence of Jesus and His angels) where they would receive their portion of His cup of wrath (that is the way it is described – their portion). Once they do, maybe all that was left of them was . . . foam.

(beat)

Q and A