Warnings of judgment: three Old Testament examples

3.    Warnings of judgment: three Old Testament examples
Jude 5–8

    [5] Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. [6] And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—[7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
(Jude 1:5-7 ESV)

    The Bible is full of calls to us to remember things. The reason, of course, lies not in our stupidity, but in the importance of memory in biblical terms. We are not told to remember something simply because we might temporarily have forgotten it or because the pressures of the day tempt us to adopt different priorities. Remembering in the Bible is a duty, an act of will; and those who remind God's people do so in a tone of solemnity and great moment. God tells Moses to instruct the Israelites to wear tassels on their clothes, 'so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes'.1 Underneath all the remembering of humans is the wonder that God 'remembers his covenant for ever',2 and that when he sent Jesus it was because he was 'remembering to be merciful'.3 There was no danger that God would forget to be merciful, but this kind of language was his way of underlining the seriousness of his commitment to the covenant. When Christians break bread and drink wine together, they do it 'in remembrance'4 of the Lord Jesus. We are not in danger of forgetting the mere fact of [2 Peter & Jude, Page 183] Jesus' death; but he wants us constantly to recall its significance and remember that he will return. Above all, it is the function of a Christian church leader today to do as Jude did, making sure that Christians understand the gospel and do not budge from it. It is the duty of the teacher to remind the church.

    Jude knows perfectly well that his readers already know the basic Bible stories he is going to tell them, but it is clear from their behaviour that they have not understood them.5 Perhaps, like us, they treat Old Testament narratives as good stories for children, that have no message once we become adults. That is bad, and Jude wants to remedy the situation. His words here are not 'an apology',6 for he is perfectly convinced that he needs to place firmly before us the truths we need so much but are unable to grasp for ourselves.

1.    The warnings (5–7)

    [5] Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. [6] And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—[7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

In line with his plan to show us how the problems we face as churches have always been the problems of God's people, Jude gives us his first series of three Old Testament warnings7 (the second comes in verses 11–13). These are three examples of the fact that rebellion against God does not succeed. The first one is out of its chronological order, probably to heighten its significance.8

a.    The people of Israel (5)


    [5] Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Jude's first example is one that struck other New Testament writers9 for its continuing relevance. Of the many times when God had intervened in Israel's history, two strikingly opposite occasions came to mind. The first was when he delivered his people out of Egypt.10 This was a formative moment for Israel, making a rabble of slaves into God's own people. It came to dominate Old Testament thinking as a pattern of God's saving dealings with his people, and its writers began to use it as a source of hope that God would rescue them from exile in Babylon and save them again.11 It is not [2 Peter & Jude, Page 184] surprising, then, that Christians took over this model as a way of teaching about the cross and the salvation Jesus Christ accomplished there. Jesus himself taught us to do that, calling his death an 'exodus'.12

    The most alarming part of the exodus story for Jude is God's later13 intervention, when he destroyed the generation he had earlier rescued. Moses had sent twelve men on a reconnaissance mission to report on the land which God had promised them and which they were about to invade. They returned with a report of a land which was fertile but well fortified. Despite the encouragement of two expedition members, Joshua and Caleb, the people were dismayed and decided not to enter the land. God's response to their unbelief was that 'not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and the desert but who disobeyed and tested me ten times—not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No-one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it.' The judgment was that 'they will meet their end in this desert; here they will die'.14

    The drastic difference between the two divine interventions was caused by one simple factor. In the second, the people of Israel did not believe. Despite the numerous promises God had given them, and the numerous proofs of his power, when they were actually faced with the task of acting upon those promises they showed a lack of faith. Here, surely, is where Jude is taking us, for we too lie between two great events in history. Behind us is the cross, which provides the only possible escape from the judgment which lies before us. The only way to gain the benefit from that is to believe it now. But there are people in our churches who look and sound like the people of God, but who will not be saved on the last day, because they rebel against God's promises and rule. Like the Israelites in the desert, they do not believe, and in consequence they will face the Judge. That was the case in the wilderness, it was the case in Jude's day, and it will be the case in ours.

b.    The angels of heaven (6)


    [6] And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day

Jude's second example of an Old Testament judgment is more [2 Peter & Jude, Page 185] difficult to untangle. He might be talking about the fall of the angels caused by their rebellion against God, of which Isaiah and Ezekiel give us tantalizing glimpses.15 But he is more likely to be referring to the strange incident in Genesis 6:1–3: 'When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.' The angels have some positions of authority, their areas of God-given responsibility.16 But they were not satisfied with the role God had given them, and infringed the boundaries by intermarriage with humans. Daryl Charles says, 'The focal point in Jude is not so much the identifying of the exact sin of the angels, rather the fact that the angels left their domain and hence are being "reserved" for judgment.'17

    Jude illuminates this story with a grim pun. The angels, itching with lust, could not keep to their place. But God will not be rebelled against, and he has kept those same angels until the future judgment. God's judgment, then, is inescapable, even though it may be delayed. The application is clear: the people who infect the churches in the way Jude will describe must not think that they can get away with their rebellious behaviour for ever. If even angels are subject to God's judgment, despite their most strenuous attempts to rebel, what chance do human rebels have?

c.    The cities of the plain (7)

—[7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Jude's third warning from the Old Testament takes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn. 18:1–19:29), a well-used biblical example of judgment.18 There were five cities on the plain, of which Admah and Zeboiim were destroyed along with the other two,19 and Zoar was spared because of Lot. Jude's focus here is on the two we know best, and on their deserved punishment.

    Sodom and Gomorrah were in a beautiful position, 'well watered, like the garden of the LORD',20 but that did not lead them to be grateful to their Creator, for they were 'arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things' before God.21 But Jude focuses [2 Peter & Jude, Page 186] on the area which the Genesis account highlights too, which is their sexual sin. The words Jude uses are strong, for literally they 'went after other flesh'.22 This is a highly controversial phrase.

    Traditionally, the sin of Sodom has been understood as homosexual activity. This is based on Genesis 19:1–5, in which Lot showed hospitality to two visitors. After the meal, the men of Sodom surrounded the house, demanding to have sex with the guests—who were in fact angels, who had come to warn Lot of the coming destruction of the city. But that theory is currently under two different lines of scrutiny. Richard Bauckham, for example, says that the (human) men of Sodom, in lusting after angels, committed the 'most extravagant of sexual aberrations, which would have transgressed the order of creation as shockingly as the fallen angels did'.23 The deep root of the sin of Sodom was undoubtedly rebellion against the created order, but it is probably too neat to detect a balance between the two examples, as Bauckham does. The sin intended by the men of Sodom was emphatically not that of lust after angels, since they had no idea of the spiritual significance of their visitors. Their request is simply, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'24

    The second attempted revision is to see the sin not as homosexual activity per se, but as something more subtle: a breach of courtesy rules. It has been argued that neither the word translated 'have sex with'—literally, 'know'—nor the Old Testament's understanding of Sodom's sin, requires a homosexual interpretation.25 'The sin of the men in the street is boorish hostility to foreigners rather than sexual perversion.'26 But although the word 'know' need not have a sexual connotation, it certainly does have that meaning in the immediate context (cf. Gn. 19:8, there translated 'slept with' in NIV). Furthermore, although the Old Testament does not elsewhere refer to any sexual element in Sodom's sin, John Stott correctly says that 'the adjectives "wicked", "vile" and "disgraceful" (Gen. 19:7; Judges 19:23) do not seem appropriate to describe a breach of hospitality'.27 Despite the attempts of Bailey, which are no doubt well [2 Peter & Jude, Page 187] intended pastorally, it seems inescapable that the sin of Sodom was an attempted homosexual gang rape.28

    Was this the exact situation in Jude's church? Possibly, although it is difficult to say, and an exact correlation is not necessary for Jude's argument. His teaching applies to a wide range of contemporary churches. Sodom was a unique example from biblical history, and it was a notoriously violent and disgraceful city. This example, like the other two warnings here, is a highlighted prototype of God's attitude. It is difficult, however, to ignore the fact that the Bible consistently portrays homosexual practice as rebellion against God's natural order, from which it is both necessary and possible to be saved. Paul reminds the Corinthian Christians: 'Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.' But he is able to add: 'And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.'29 That means, of course, that homosexual practice is neither better nor worse than any other rebellion against God's law. Jude is not targeting it as the worst imaginable sin. He has already (verse 5) pointed to lack of belief as the ultimate rebellion.30 He is not telling us to engage in a prurient witch-hunt. His message about obedience will apply to any Christian in any place. Nevertheless, it does seem that the people in his church were expressing their claimed freedom in homosexual sex, and Jude sees that as rebellion.
    The horrific fireball of destruction that hit Sodom and the other cities serves as an example to us of God's final judgment. 'The angels had the blessings of heaven, the Israelites of the Church and Sodom of the world. But the angels upon their apostasy lost heaven, the murmuring Israelites were shut out of Canaan, and the Sodomites were, together with their fruitful land, destroyed.'31 These are not just an example; they are a 'warning'32 of what will happen in the future on a far greater scale. The punishment Sodom and Gomorrah suffered was temporary, and although the volcanic activity of the area constantly reminds tourists of the biblical story, Ezekiel looked forward to their restoration.33 No such happy [2 Peter & Jude, Page 188] restoration awaits those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire, a destiny about which Jesus himself warns us.34

Note: eternal fire

    There is a sharp division between evangelicals on the destiny of those condemned by God. Some believe that hell is a place of eternal, conscious torment;35 others that it is a place of irreversible and horrific destruction.36 Proponents of both views argue on premises far wider than Jude 7, and for neither group is it a main element in their case. The matter must be decided from a complete biblical perspective, for this verse alone is interpreted both ways. Whichever conclusion we reach (and in either case the fate is horrible), Jude has written to warn us of it. Will we take notice?


1 Nu. 15:39.

2 1 Ch. 16:15.

3 Lk. 1:54.

4 Lk. 22:19.

5 Green (1987) translates this, 'You knew it all once', and says, 'There is no justification for the NIV rendering of hapax by already and eidotes by know' (p. 177). 'Already' is weak, but eidotes, a perfect active participle, can have a present sense: 'Although you are fully informed' (NSRV). Pace GNB, hapax belongs here and not with the exodus (see note 13 below).

6 Kelly, p. 254.

7 Superficially similar to 2 Pet. 2:4–9, the two passages differ in content (Jude uses the Israelites, Peter the flood), in order (Jude is thematic, Peter chronological) and in purpose (Jude's examples are of judgment, Peter's of judgment and salvation). See comments on 2 Pet. 2:4–9, and the Appendix.

8 Bauckham (1983), p. 50.

9 1 Cor. 10:5–11; Heb. 3:15–4:2.

10 Ex. 1:1–14:31.

11 Is. 63:7–19.

12 Lk. 9:31, translated 'departure' by NIV.

13 Literally, 'a second time'. For that to make sense, hapax ('once') would have to refer to the exodus from Egypt. But it should really have a context earlier in the sentence, where it is found. The NIV places the word correctly, at the start of the sentence, but translates the phrase loosely as 'you already know all this'. Jude is subtly contrasting the two acts of God, to save and to judge, with the two comings of Jesus, as Saviour and Judge.

14 Nu. 13:1–14:45.

15 Is. 14:12–15; Ezk. 28:11–19.

16 See, e.g., Ps. 104:4; Dn. 9:21–22; 10:4–11:1; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; Col. 2:10, 15; Heb. 1:7. The AV translated the word archeœ ('positions of authority') as 'their first estate', but NKJV has 'proper domain', which is better.

17 Charles (1991), p. 135.

18 Dt. 29:23; 32:32; Ps. 107:34; Is. 1:9–10; 3:9; 13:19; Je. 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; La. 4:6; Ezk. 16:46–55; Am. 4:11; Zp. 2:9; Mt. 10:15; 11:24; Lk. 10:12; 17:29; Rom. 9:29; 2 Pet. 2:6; Rev. 11:8.

19 Dt. 29:23; Ho. 11:8.

20 Gn. 13:10.

21 Ezk. 16:49–50.

22 Sarkos heteras.

23 Bauckham (1983), p. 54.

24 Gn. 19:5.

25 See D. S. Bailey, Homosexuality in the Western Christian Tradition (1955; Hamden: Shoe String, 1975). His views have been criticized by John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today (London: Marshall Pickering; 2nd edn. 1990) = Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Old Tappan: Revell, 1990), pp. 339–340, and B. G. Webb, Theological and Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality, Explorations 8 (Sydney: Openbook Publishers, 1994), pp. 74–78.

26 Webb's interpretation of Bailey; Webb, op. cit., p. 75.

27 Stott, op cit., p. 340. The reference to Judges is to a second story that Bailey treats in the same way.

28 Webb's position is close to Bauckham's, but he adds that the 'object was to humiliate the foreigners by subjecting them to homosexual rape, as was often done to prisoners of war in the ancient world' (p. 77, n. 6). It is unclear in his interpretation whether the men of Sodom knew that the messengers were angels.

29 1 Cor. 6:9–11.

30 Jesus used Sodom and Gomorrah to make exactly the same point; Mt. 10:14–15; 11:20–24.

31 Manton, p. 219.

32 Kistemaker, p. 382.

33 Ezk. 16:53–55.

34 Mt. 18:8; 25:41; see too Rev. 19:20; 20:10; 21:8.

35 E.g. J. I. Packer, The Problem of Eternal Punishment (Bury St Edmunds: Fellowship of Word and Spirit, Orthos Booklet 10, n.d.), p. 6; idem, 'The Problem of Eternal Punishment', Crux 26.3 (September 1990), pp. 18–25; J. Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell? (Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1993); L. Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1992).

36 Most importantly, E. W. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes (Exeter: Paternoster, rev. edn. 1994), but see also J. W. Wenham, 'The Case for Conditional Immortality', in N. M. de S. Cameron (ed.), Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), pp. 161–191. That volume also includes a critique of Fudge's work by K. S. Harmon (pp. 191–224), which Fudge's revised edition notes.

37 Jude uses a sentence structure which separates the one sexual sin and the two examples of rebelliousness (men … de … de).

38 Blum, p. 391.

39 Manton, p. 113.

--
Regards,
Ryan Chia

Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Mission exists
because worship doesn't. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is
ultimate, not man.

*From John Piper, Let The Nations Be Glad*