Changes

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of Godly love. Verse 7  follows examples of men and angels went  backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then declares, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)   

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of Godly love. Verse 7  follows examples of men and angels went  backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then declares, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)   

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but Gomorrha also the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of  “ek,”  denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and  “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the [[Septuagint]] to denote whoredom Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, some homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the specific primarily sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that they sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels, perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the book of Enochian legends. However, this would  require them to abandon the argument that Gn. 19 had nothing to do with sex, while if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, then it is about them going after the daughters of men, as it is in the Book of Enoch, not the other way around. And if we are to believe the latter apocryphal book, then we must believe in their approx. 443 foot height offspring (or 44 feet if the Egyptian text was corrupted)   

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but Gomorrha also the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of  “ek,”  denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and  “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the [[Septuagint]] to denote whoredom Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, most homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the specific primarily sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that they sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels, perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the book of Enochian legends. However, this would  require them to abandon the argument that Gn. 19 had nothing to do with sex, while if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, then it is about them going after the daughters of men, as it is in the Book of Enoch, not the other way around. And if we are to believe the latter apocryphal book, then we must believe in their approx. 443 foot height offspring (or 44 feet if the Egyptian text was corrupted)   

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10).  Heteros could easily refer to other than lawful or right, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this.  Dave Miller comments, “Strange” refers to “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind” (Thayer, p. 254), and so pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10).  Heteros could easily refer to other than lawful or right, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this.  Dave Miller comments, “Strange” refers to “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind” (Thayer, p. 254), and so pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

That this fornication was the Sodomites knowingly seeking sexual relations with angels is further militated against by the fact that the fornication was a regional issue, not simply isolated to Sodom, and in Gn. 19 it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. Taken together, it is unreasonable to hold that that the particular primary sin of Sodom, leading to their destruction, was not sexual, while the most warranted understanding is that is was widespread regional fornication, including that of a most perverse manner, that of men seeking to sexually “know” men, albeit unknowingly it was with angels, and which positively confirmed the investigation of their grievous sin.  

That this fornication was the Sodomites knowingly seeking sexual relations with angels is further militated against by the fact that the fornication was a regional issue, not simply isolated to Sodom, and in Gn. 19 it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. Taken together, it is unreasonable to hold that that the particular primary sin of Sodom, leading to their destruction, was not sexual, while the most warranted understanding is that is was widespread regional fornication, including that of a most perverse manner, that of men seeking to sexually “know” men, albeit unknowingly it was with angels, and which positively confirmed the investigation of their grievous sin.  

A final attempt by homosexual apologists to disallow the most particular sin of Sodom from being sexual is to assert that other summations of the iniquity of Sodom do not mention sexual sin but shows it to be inhospitality to strangers, for which cause they invoke Ezek 16:49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."  However, widespread promotion of sensuality and homoeroticism in particular, tends to be a product of and concomitant with, pride, abundance of food, idleness, and selfishness. And as will be shown, Sodom is associated more for sexual sins than with inhospitality or any other physical type of sin. But first we should notice that while verse 49 states overall sins, the next verse He states,  "And they [Sodomites] were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."  The word for “abomination” here is  tô‛êbah, and (contrary to many homosexual assertions) it is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24;  Ezek. 22:11; 33:26), including in this chapter (vs. 22, 58). And that the context in this chapter is that of fornication by Israel, and while the Hebrew is sparse in vs. 47-48, contextually the LORD was comparing Israel with Sodom (even calling it “thy sister”), and yet revealing that Israel was different, not in the sense that Sodom's physical sins were different, or those of Samaria, but that the Israelites went beyond them in scope and degree, and by idolatry violated their covenant with God and thus faced certain judgment. Thus Sodom is once again listed in connection with sexual sins.<ref>cf. Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>   

A final attempt by homosexual apologists to disallow the most particular sin of Sodom from being sexual is to assert that other summations of the iniquity of Sodom do not mention sexual sin but shows it to be inhospitality to strangers,<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Tradition, pp. 1-28; McNeil, Church and the Homosexual, pp. 42-50;  Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pp. 42-50</ref> for which cause they invoke Ezek 16:49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."  However, widespread promotion of sensuality and homoeroticism in particular, tends to be a product of and concomitant with, pride, abundance of food, idleness, and selfishness. And as will be shown, Sodom is associated more for sexual sins than with inhospitality or any other physical type of sin. But first we should notice that while verse 49 states overall sins, the next verse He states,  "And they [Sodomites] were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."  The word for “abomination” here is  tô‛êbah, and (contrary to many homosexual assertions) it is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24;  Ezek. 22:11; 33:26), including in this chapter (vs. 22, 58). And that the context in this chapter is that of fornication by Israel, and while the Hebrew is sparse in vs. 47-48, contextually the LORD was comparing Israel with Sodom (even calling it “thy sister”), and yet revealing that Israel was different, not in the sense that Sodom's physical sins were different, or those of Samaria, but that the Israelites went beyond them in scope and degree, and by idolatry violated their covenant with God and thus faced certain judgment. Thus Sodom is once again listed in connection with sexual sins.<ref>cf. Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>   

Sins to which Sodom is linked to elsewhere include,  

Sins to which Sodom is linked to elsewhere include,  

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

== See also ==

== See also ==