un-GODly men; Jude v.4 = The adjective "un-GODly" describes a person who has no reverential respect, nor any honorable consideration for GOD, or anything pertaining to GOD. Thus, they reject any thought or form of worshiping HIM because "they did not like to retain {possessing and putting intelligence and wisdom into practical use} GOD in their knowledge" ( Rom. 1:28).
As a point of antonymous (the opposite of synonymous) reference, the term un-GODliness describes the polar opposite contrast to GODliness. Un-GODliness is anything and everything in man that contradicts GOD, HIS ESSENCE, HIS PERSON, HIS Character, HIS Attributes, HIS Will, and HIS Purposes. Un-GODliness is the rejection of, and unbelief in, GOD, HIS CHRIST, and HIS Gospel.
The un-GODly are not atheists by default or through any actual non-belief in GOD's real existence, for they are "men, who hold the Truth in unrighteousness" ( Rom. 1:18). They actually know about GOD, but choose to reject HIM, for "they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge" ( Rom. 1:28). Moreover, the hatred the un-GODly seethe toward GOD prompts them to "despise the Riches of HIS Goodness and Forbearance" ( Rom. 2:4) because of their "hardness and impenitent heart" ( Rom. 2:5).
Their hatred, hardness, and rejection of GOD turns them into "The fool [who] hath said in his heart, There is no GOD" ( Ps. 14:1; cp. Ps. 36:1; 53:1). Notice, the expression, "There is ", is in italics for it was added by the translators. What the fool literally says is this: "There is no God for me. I will worship and serve no god or deity." In essence, even though they "know the Judgement of GOD" ( Rom. 1:32), this mental knowledge poses "no fear of GOD before their eyes" ( Rom. 3:18; cp. Eph. 4:19; 1Tim. 4:2).
I don't really understand why you're belaboring the definition of "ungodly", as if it's meaning wasn't patently clear from the very basic and fundamental prefix, suffix and root word that comprise the word -- i.e. "un", "God", and "ly".
And that litany of attributes you unilaterally ascribe to it without explanation doesn't have anything to do with the manner is which that word is clearly utilized within Jude, which is focused exclusively on gross sexual immorality. You invoke a litany of passages from other sections of the Bible, implying direct correlation to the subject of Jude, without remotely establishing that. You basically convey no understanding of this tiny book at all. Did you know that it directly mirrors 2 Peter Chapter 2, which is almost always discussed together it?
At any rate both passages describe teachers or other people of prominence in the Church, who are secretly engaged in gross sexual immorality without anyone knowing about it (according to "Peter" and "Jude"). They're describing people clearly integrated into the life of the church, but unbeknownst to everyone are sexual deviants, and it's implied they're going to lose their salvation for it. And whoever wrote 2 Peter just bends over backwards throughout the book to say, "I really am the Apostle Peter, and I'm fixing to be martyred and this is my last word to the Church." And then you have someone claiming to be the brother of Christ (Jude) that comes along and says nearly the exact same thing as "Peter".
Your spiritual insight and hermeneutical ability to disqualify my commentary as having "no understanding of this tiny book at all" greatly impresses me. I'll take your criticism under advisement, even in light of the fact that you have not read my lengthy commentary in its entirety. Keep in mind, this website limits each submission to only 2000 characters which is hardly enough to make a basic point.
Readers must first have a general understanding of the term "un-GODly" (Jude v.4) before they can apply it in the context. The general explanation details "why" they are un-GODly. Jude's epistle details "how" they are un-GODly. Jude provided no identities to these un-GODly people, for they exist in every age. Rather, Jude described them as "certain men crept in unawares" (v.4), and "these [filthy] dreamers" (v.8). While these two descriptions may identify different types of people, they all desire to produce the same result within the church: perversion of the Gospel and the Doctrines of CHRIST (e.g. vv. 11-12).
They are un-GODly far beyond their "secretly engaged in gross sexual immorality without anyone knowing" as you say. Consider their unGODly ways of ...
+ hatred toward all in authority (v.8),
+ mimicking Cain, Balaam, and Korah (v.11),
+ deeds, hard [speeches] and great swelling words(vv. 8 & 15-16),
+ unjustified murmurings and ungrateful complaints (v.16), and
+ mockery of all things holy during "the last time" (v.18).
Their behavior does not "imply they're going to lose their salvation", but rather they are not saved in the first place, for they "were before of old ordained to this condemnation" (v.4) because "they have not The SPIRIT" (v.19). These are the same type of heretics our LORD described as thieves, robbers, strangers, and hirelings ( Jn. 10).
Yes, I'm keenly aware of Apostle Peter's account of the same type of un-GODly men as you correctly point out, particularly Second Peter chapter two, and to which I refer many times in my full commentary.
Indeed brother Philip, their ungodliness knew no bounds. Even if their many sins as you listed were sufficient for immediate condemnation, their "turning the Grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (verse 4), seems to be the hook on which that list hangs.
I think of the condemnation by our Lord in Revelation 2:6,14,15 of the Nicolaitans, from whom these "ungodly men" may well have arisen or at least from under their tutorship. As these men (in Jude), so also were the Nicolaitans, who made mockery of the Grace of God revealed in His Gospel. Believing that marriage was not binding on Christians as it was a human invention, this gave rise to all manner of unnatural unrestrained sexual behaviour. And with the Love & Mercy of God to all men being the foundation of the Gospel, they, without fear of punishment for their sins, literally turned & perverted God's Grace into lasciviousness. And with swelling convincing words, many were led astray, fulfilling fleshly desires & becoming ensnared by Satan. Having done despite to God's Grace, the Holy Character of the Lord God & His Son were so marred & distorted, that it could be well said of them, that they 'denied the Lord & His Christ'. And don't these words allude to the Gnostic teaching at that time, which refuted the belief that deity could unite with flesh? These men spoken of in Jude came in many disguises to believers everywhere, even today, tools of Satan, to weaken & destroy the Body of Christ & the yet the sure promise from Matthew 16:18, is that even "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".
Thank you for those thoughts brother, on this passage.
Thank you for reminding me of the Nicolaitans ( Rev. 2:6 & 15). The proper name "Nicolaitans" literally means "conqueror (or destroyer) of the laity (people)." I cannot find any proof that they were disciples of the Nicolas mentioned only in Acts 6:5. I certainly do not desire to defame that particular Nicolas based on conjecture or speculation.
The implication of the term "Nicolaitan" suggests that a despotic authoritarian, or a hierarchy had assumed unauthorized lordship as priests over the church, thus usurping The Headship of CHRIST ( Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18).
The church must never underestimate the influential power these charismatic religious heretics have over gullible churches. Note how the Ephesian Church hated "the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I (our Glorified CHRIST) also hate" ( Rev. 2:1-6). Yet, the Pergamos Church appointed certain Nicolaitans into their church leadership positions and adopted and practiced ("hold") "the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" ( Rev. 2:12-16).
I also looked up the word "hold" ( Rev. 2:15) in my Greek dictionary and discovered it translates from the Greek verb root (pronounced "krat-EH-o"), which speaks of church leaders using dictatorial power over the church to enforce their Nicolaitan doctrine. This sets a dangerous precedence, for the powerful often gain power over the church far beyond that prescribed in the New Testament.
If "Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them" (3Jn. v.9), was not a Nicolaitan, he certainly seemed to have patterned his authoritarian intimidation after their doctrine.
Reading your post has given me some thoughts for adding to my own commentary. Thank you.
Thanks brother Philip, for those great additions to my understanding. As I read it over, my thoughts went to both our Lord & also to the Apostle Peter who brought out warnings about correct leadership of Christ's Church: Matthew 20:25-28 & 1 Peter 5:2,3. Those, of whom the early Church congregations were warned, certainly disregarded this great example of humility, leadership, & being a pattern to emulate. But aren't those the qualities that any leader, within or without the Church, should embrace & exercise? Thank you again & every blessing in your labours.
As a point of antonymous (the opposite of synonymous) reference, the term un-GODliness describes the polar opposite contrast to GODliness. Un-GODliness is anything and everything in man that contradicts GOD, HIS ESSENCE, HIS PERSON, HIS Character, HIS Attributes, HIS Will, and HIS Purposes. Un-GODliness is the rejection of, and unbelief in, GOD, HIS CHRIST, and HIS Gospel.
The un-GODly are not atheists by default or through any actual non-belief in GOD's real existence, for they are "men, who hold the Truth in unrighteousness" ( Rom. 1:18). They actually know about GOD, but choose to reject HIM, for "they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge" ( Rom. 1:28). Moreover, the hatred the un-GODly seethe toward GOD prompts them to "despise the Riches of HIS Goodness and Forbearance" ( Rom. 2:4) because of their "hardness and impenitent heart" ( Rom. 2:5).
Their hatred, hardness, and rejection of GOD turns them into "The fool [who] hath said in his heart, There is no GOD" ( Ps. 14:1; cp. Ps. 36:1; 53:1). Notice, the expression, "There is ", is in italics for it was added by the translators. What the fool literally says is this: "There is no God for me. I will worship and serve no god or deity." In essence, even though they "know the Judgement of GOD" ( Rom. 1:32), this mental knowledge poses "no fear of GOD before their eyes" ( Rom. 3:18; cp. Eph. 4:19; 1Tim. 4:2).
And that litany of attributes you unilaterally ascribe to it without explanation doesn't have anything to do with the manner is which that word is clearly utilized within Jude, which is focused exclusively on gross sexual immorality. You invoke a litany of passages from other sections of the Bible, implying direct correlation to the subject of Jude, without remotely establishing that. You basically convey no understanding of this tiny book at all. Did you know that it directly mirrors 2 Peter Chapter 2, which is almost always discussed together it?
At any rate both passages describe teachers or other people of prominence in the Church, who are secretly engaged in gross sexual immorality without anyone knowing about it (according to "Peter" and "Jude"). They're describing people clearly integrated into the life of the church, but unbeknownst to everyone are sexual deviants, and it's implied they're going to lose their salvation for it. And whoever wrote 2 Peter just bends over backwards throughout the book to say, "I really am the Apostle Peter, and I'm fixing to be martyred and this is my last word to the Church." And then you have someone claiming to be the brother of Christ (Jude) that comes along and says nearly the exact same thing as "Peter".
Readers must first have a general understanding of the term "un-GODly" (Jude v.4) before they can apply it in the context. The general explanation details "why" they are un-GODly. Jude's epistle details "how" they are un-GODly. Jude provided no identities to these un-GODly people, for they exist in every age. Rather, Jude described them as "certain men crept in unawares" (v.4), and "these [filthy] dreamers" (v.8). While these two descriptions may identify different types of people, they all desire to produce the same result within the church: perversion of the Gospel and the Doctrines of CHRIST (e.g. vv. 11-12).
They are un-GODly far beyond their "secretly engaged in gross sexual immorality without anyone knowing" as you say. Consider their unGODly ways of ...
+ hatred toward all in authority (v.8),
+ mimicking Cain, Balaam, and Korah (v.11),
+ deeds, hard [speeches] and great swelling words(vv. 8 & 15-16),
+ unjustified murmurings and ungrateful complaints (v.16), and
+ mockery of all things holy during "the last time" (v.18).
Their behavior does not "imply they're going to lose their salvation", but rather they are not saved in the first place, for they "were before of old ordained to this condemnation" (v.4) because "they have not The SPIRIT" (v.19). These are the same type of heretics our LORD described as thieves, robbers, strangers, and hirelings ( Jn. 10).
Yes, I'm keenly aware of Apostle Peter's account of the same type of un-GODly men as you correctly point out, particularly Second Peter chapter two, and to which I refer many times in my full commentary.
I think of the condemnation by our Lord in Revelation 2:6,14,15 of the Nicolaitans, from whom these "ungodly men" may well have arisen or at least from under their tutorship. As these men (in Jude), so also were the Nicolaitans, who made mockery of the Grace of God revealed in His Gospel. Believing that marriage was not binding on Christians as it was a human invention, this gave rise to all manner of unnatural unrestrained sexual behaviour. And with the Love & Mercy of God to all men being the foundation of the Gospel, they, without fear of punishment for their sins, literally turned & perverted God's Grace into lasciviousness. And with swelling convincing words, many were led astray, fulfilling fleshly desires & becoming ensnared by Satan. Having done despite to God's Grace, the Holy Character of the Lord God & His Son were so marred & distorted, that it could be well said of them, that they 'denied the Lord & His Christ'. And don't these words allude to the Gnostic teaching at that time, which refuted the belief that deity could unite with flesh? These men spoken of in Jude came in many disguises to believers everywhere, even today, tools of Satan, to weaken & destroy the Body of Christ & the yet the sure promise from Matthew 16:18, is that even "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".
Thank you for those thoughts brother, on this passage.
Thank you for reminding me of the Nicolaitans ( Rev. 2:6 & 15). The proper name "Nicolaitans" literally means "conqueror (or destroyer) of the laity (people)." I cannot find any proof that they were disciples of the Nicolas mentioned only in Acts 6:5. I certainly do not desire to defame that particular Nicolas based on conjecture or speculation.
The implication of the term "Nicolaitan" suggests that a despotic authoritarian, or a hierarchy had assumed unauthorized lordship as priests over the church, thus usurping The Headship of CHRIST ( Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18).
The church must never underestimate the influential power these charismatic religious heretics have over gullible churches. Note how the Ephesian Church hated "the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I (our Glorified CHRIST) also hate" ( Rev. 2:1-6). Yet, the Pergamos Church appointed certain Nicolaitans into their church leadership positions and adopted and practiced ("hold") "the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" ( Rev. 2:12-16).
I also looked up the word "hold" ( Rev. 2:15) in my Greek dictionary and discovered it translates from the Greek verb root (pronounced "krat-EH-o"), which speaks of church leaders using dictatorial power over the church to enforce their Nicolaitan doctrine. This sets a dangerous precedence, for the powerful often gain power over the church far beyond that prescribed in the New Testament.
If "Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them" (3Jn. v.9), was not a Nicolaitan, he certainly seemed to have patterned his authoritarian intimidation after their doctrine.
Reading your post has given me some thoughts for adding to my own commentary. Thank you.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?