xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)


Common Salvation

The notion that "all races will be offered salvation" which universalism preaches is based on a misunderstanding of what Jude, James' brother, wrote in Jude 1:3, and complete ignorance or a misrepresentation of what he meant in Jude 1:7:

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


Jud 1:7 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.

Jud 1:7 Even as5613 Sodom4670 and2532 Gomorrah,1116 and2532 the3588 cities4172 about4012 them846 in like manner,3664, 5158 giving themselves over to fornication,1608 and2532 going565 after3694 strange2087 flesh,4561 are set forth4295 for an example,1164 suffering5254 the vengeance1349 of eternal166 fire.4442


The simple fact that Jude acknowledges that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were "going after strange flesh" should at least make them stop and think "what's meant by 'strange flesh'"?   Note from the Strong's numbers above that "strange flesh" is translated from "heteros #2087 sarx #4561":




Of uncertain affinity; (an-, the) other or different: - altered, else, next (day), one, (an-) other, some, strange.




Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

This is how Paul uses this word "flesh", translated from "sarx":

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Romans 9:3

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Romans 9:4

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Romans 9:5


"Flesh" thus refers to "my kinsmen" who are fellow "Israelites" to whom Christ came "as concerning the flesh".

Since "strange flesh" refers to people who are not "my kinsmen", who are not "Israelites", and for whom Christ did NOT come, how could Jude be claiming that "common salvation" could ever apply to anybody besides Israelites?



Mr. Weakley should refer to the Septuagint to understand the errancy of the Textus Receptus-based KJV from which he quotes.


Let me explain what the "common salvation" reference means found in Jude 1:3. Here is the KJV version of Jude 1:3:


"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."


It should read as the following:


"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you about our common salvation, I had need to write to you, and exhort you to fight earnestly for the persuasion which was once delivered to the Separated Ones."


The “our” or the Greek word (�:�<) is absent from the Textus Receptus. It is however, present in Papyrus 72 (P72), codex Sinaiticus (),Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), Miniscules 81, 614, 1739, Uncial Q, Syriac Philoxeniana (syr,ph), Syriac Harklensis (syr,h), Coptic Sahadic  (cop,sa), Armenian (arm), etc. The omission in the Textus Receptus and a few Uncials was done to reflect a universal character in the passage.


It's amazing what one possessive adjective does for a verse like Jude 1:3.


Another point I'd like to raise is concerning the word "saints", which is found in this very same passage. The question of whether in Jude's time there were "saints", as we call them today, needs to be asked. I don’t think there were saints as we now call them today. Using this word is a deceptive way of changing the meaning of the passage though. The Greek word found in Strong's concordance is "hagios" (#40). In Strong's Concordance, we are told this word means "the most holy thing, a saint." However, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott in, "A Greek-English Lexicon" tells us this word means “devoted to the gods: in good sense, sacred, holy: 1. of things, esp. temples, 2. of persons, holy, pure.” 


It becomes evident that the translation word - "saints" is very inadequate. What people are referred as sacred and holy? When the word "our" is rightfully reinstated in Jude 1:3, it provides the possession form of "we." Those holy people are the Israelites; the one's that were separated from the other races. When the passage talks about "our common salvation" it makes it understood that it is talking about the Israelites. In Jude 1:5 another reference is made about the Separated Ones.


“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.”


Here the Lord gave the Israelites salvation, but destroyed those of them later who did not believe. In Jude 1:3, Jude is stating that an earnest attempt needs to be made so salvation of "lost Israelites" can occur. The consequence of not acting will be destruction to many Israelites.


I hope this provides better understanding to Mr. Weakley.