Yudas 1:7

1:7 So also ¹  Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, ²  since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire ³  in a way similar to ⁴  these angels, ⁵  are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

Yudas 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Jude, ⁶  a slave ⁷  of Jesus Christ and brother of James, ⁸  to those who are called, wrapped in the love of ⁹  God the Father and kept for ¹⁰  Jesus Christ.

Yeremia 49:31-32

49:31 The Lord says, ¹¹  “Army of Babylon, ¹²  go and attack

a nation that lives in peace and security.

They have no gates or walls to protect them. ¹³ 

They live all alone.

49:32 Their camels will be taken as plunder.

Their vast herds will be taken as spoil.

I will scatter to the four winds

those desert peoples who cut their hair short at the temples. ¹⁴ 

I will bring disaster against them

from every direction,” says the Lord. ¹⁵ 

Zakharia 2:4-5

2:4 and said to him, “Hurry, speak to this young man ¹⁶  as follows: ‘Jerusalem will no longer be enclosed by walls ¹⁷  because of the multitude of people and animals there. 2:5 But I (the Lord says) will be a wall of fire surrounding Jerusalem ¹⁸  and the source of glory in her midst.’”

[1:7]  ¹ tn Grk “as.”

[1:7]  ² tn Grk “the towns [or cities] surrounding them.”

[1:7]  ³ tn Grk “strange flesh.” This phrase has been variously interpreted. It could refer to flesh of another species (such as angels lusting after human flesh). This would aptly describe the sin of the angels, but not easily explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It could refer to the homosexual practices of the Sodomites, but a difficulty arises from the use of ἕτερος ({etero"; “strange,” “other”). When this is to be distinguished from ἄλλος (allos, “another”) it suggests “another of a different kind.” If so, would that properly describe homosexual behavior? In response, the language could easily be compact: “pursued flesh other than what was normally pursued.” However, would this find an analogy in the lust of angels (such would imply that angels normally had sexual relations of some sort, but cf. Matt 22:30)? Another alternative is that the focus of the parallel is on the activity of the surrounding cities and the activity of the angels. This is especially plausible since the participles ἐκπορνεύσασαι (ekporneusasai, “having indulged in sexual immorality”) and ἀπελθοῦσαι (apelqousai, “having pursued”) have concord with “cities” (πόλεις, poleis), a feminine plural noun, rather than with Sodom and Gomorrah (both masculine nouns). If so, then their sin would not necessarily have to be homosexuality. However, most likely the feminine participles are used because of constructio ad sensum (construction according to sense). That is, since both Sodom and Gomorrah are cities, the feminine is used to imply that all the cities are involved. The connection with angels thus seems to be somewhat loose: Both angels and Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in heinous sexual immorality. Thus, whether the false teachers indulge in homosexual activity is not the point; mere sexual immorality is enough to condemn them.

[1:7]  ⁴ tn Or “in the same way as.”

[1:7]  ⁵ tn “Angels” is not in the Greek text; but the masculine demonstrative pronoun most likely refers back to the angels of v. 6.

[1:1]  ⁶ tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ⁷ tn Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:1]  sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s slave or servant is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For a Jew this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

[1:1]  ⁸ sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.

[1:1]  ⁹ tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”

[1:1]  ¹⁰ tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.

[49:31]  ¹¹ tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”

[49:31]  ¹² tn The words “Army of Babylon” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.

[49:31]  ¹³ tn Heb “no gates and no bar,” i.e., “that lives securely without gates or bars.” The phrase is used by the figure of species for genus (synecdoche) to refer to the fact that they have no defenses, i.e., no walls, gates, or bars on the gates. The figure has been interpreted in the translation for the benefit of the average reader.

[49:32]  ¹⁴ tn See the translator’s note at Jer 9:26 and compare the usage in 9:26 and 25:23.

[49:32]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”

[2:4]  ¹⁶ sn That is, to Zechariah.

[2:4]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “Jerusalem will dwell as open regions (פְּרָזוֹת, pÿrazot)”; cf. NAB “in open country”; CEV “won’t have any boundaries.” The population will be so large as to spill beyond the ancient and normal enclosures. The people need not fear, however, for the Lord will be an invisible but strong wall (v. 5).

[2:5]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “her”; the referent (Jerusalem) has been specified in the translation for clarity.