Friday, July 19, 2024

Thomas R. Schreiner on Jude 5 and the plausibility of the reading of "Jesus"

  

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)