Jude began his reminder with the
triad of judgments the Lord had inflicted in the past, beginning with the
judgment of Israel. Another textual problem exists, for many manuscripts read
“Jesus” instead of “Lord.” Indeed, the external evidence suggests that “Jesus”
rather than “Lord” is the correct reading. Most scholars doubt that the
reference could be to Jesus on internal grounds, arguing that God led Israel
out of Egypt and destroyed the wicked angels. A reference to Jesus Christ,
however, is not as strange as some suggest. Paul saw Christ as present with
Israel in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4, 9), and so it is possible to think Jude
believed that Jesus Christ delivered Israel out of Egypt. Moreover, since 1 Enoch 69:26–29 describes the Son of
Man as sitting in judgment over the bound angels, it is not unlikely, as Osburn
notes, that the same could be applied to Jesus Christ. Fossum supports the view
that Jude referred to Jesus Christ, arguing that Jude understood Jesus to be
the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Furthermore, New Testament writers
identify Jesus Christ with texts that refer to Yahweh in the Old Testament.
John said that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ (John 12:41), referring to
the throne room vision of Isaiah 6. Isaiah said every knee will bow to Yahweh
and confess allegiance to him (Isa 45:23), but Paul related this to Jesus
Christ (Phil 2:10–11). Hence, it is not surprising that Jude could attribute
the destruction of Israel, the angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah to Jesus Christ.
Fossum rightly notes that in the Old Testament account of the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah, the annihilation of those cities is attributed to the Angel
of the Lord (cf. Gen 18:1, 13–14, 17–33; 19:13–14, 25, 29). Fossum indicates
that intermediaries, such as the Logos or Wisdom, are also understood as the
means by which the cities were destroyed in Philo and Wisdom of Solomon. The step of identifying Jesus as the Angel of
the Lord is explicitly argued by Justin Martyr, and hence it is not impossible
that Jude preceded Justin in drawing such a conclusion. Despite some plausible
evidence supporting a reference to Jesus Christ, Jude likely referred to the
Father rather than Christ. Fossum and others rightly show that references to
Jesus Christ exist in other texts, and hence such a reading is not impossible.
But in many of the other texts a clear reference to Christ exists, and such is
lacking here. It is more natural to think of the Father delivering Israel from
Egypt and of the Father judging the angels who sinned in Genesis 6. Of course,
we would have a clear reference to Jesus if “Jesus” is the superior reading in
the manuscripts. The textual issue is as difficult as the interpretive debate,
and so again we must admit that the reading “Jesus” is certainly possible. On
the other hand, the inclusion of “Jesus” in some manuscripts could be due to
scribal confusion of the nomina sacra.
If a mistake arose in the nomina sacra,
then a reference to the Father as “Lord” is preferable. (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1,
2 Peter, Jude [The New American Commentary 37; Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 2003], 444-45)