Commenting on the textual variation in Jude 5 (whether it was Jesus [Ἰησοῦς] or the Lord [ὁ κύριος] who, after saving the Israelites, in Exodus would later destroy many of them due to their sins in the wilderness, Jerome Neyrey wrote:
Yet a case can be made for reading “Jesus” here. I enjoys a weightier and more frequent textual attestation than the alternative readings; and it is the more difficult reading, with a presumption in its favor for this very reason. Although Metzger’s committee (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 726) considers this reading “difficult . . . to the point of impossibility,” the readings of “Jesus” is hardly as theologically awkward as some claim. There is an early stream of Jewish-Christian christology which saw Jesus active and operative events described in the Old Testament. First, Paul reflects a very early Christian reading of an Exodus tradition where Christ was present and active in that Old Testament vent (1 Cor 10;4; possibly also in Heb 11:26-28). In several places, the Fourth Gospel states that Abraham, Jacob, and Isaiah saw Jesus (8:56; 12:4; see J. H. Neyrey, “The Jacob Allusions in John 1:51,” CBQ 44 [1982]:578-89). Such a christology is found in Jewish-Christian circles, as witnessed by the Pharisee Paul, the Fourth Gospel, and Justin Dial. 11:3; 120.3. Inasmuch as the scoffers “deny our only master and lord Jesus Christ.” “Jesus” should give a riposte to this honor challenge. It must be admitted that if the original reading was “Lord,” the author could still have understood this figure as Jesus, in accord with the Jewish-Christian stream of christology noted here.
Therefore, in Jude’s christology, Jesus personally pre-existed.
On the topic of universal personal pre-existence, see:
