Jude 5

[A18]

"Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." Jude 5 (ESV).

The remarkableness of this startling passage has been dulled by the tendency of English translations to substitute the Lord for Jesus. But it seems Jesus is the better reading.

The NET Bible comments: "not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (qeos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though Ì72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [qeos Cristos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς)."

What seals it for me is this: If the autograph read the Lord, it is hard to imagine a scribe substituting Jesus. But if it read Jesus, it is easy to account for the variants.

I'm not trying to make any point here. I just wanted to pass this on, as I suspect many Christians are unaware of it.

[useful idiot]

I don't have my ESV handy, but my NIV has translated it as Lord. Do you know of any particular reason why modern translations other than the ESV still translate it as Lord? It would seem to me that other Christian translations would be eager to use Jesus if that's the more appropriate English equivalent.

[A18]

It's not a translation issue; it's a case of disagreement among the manuscripts. In other words, the question is not what the Greek word means, but which Greek word (or words) was used by Jude.

Jesus is, for the context, awkward.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why would "Jesus" be awkward for the context?

[A18]

Isn't it obvious? One does not ordinary refer to the Old Testament actions of God as actions of Jesus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the new testament often credits Jesus with the actions of the old testament God...Hebrews even states that Christ created the universe

[A18]

You mean the reference to "[God's] Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world"?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no, I was referring to a verse in ch2 of hebrews...but i'll have to wait until I have access to a bible

[useful idiot]

It's not a translation issue; it's a case of disagreement among the manuscripts. In other words, the question is not what the Greek word means, but which Greek word (or words) was used by Jude.

Jesus is, for the context, awkward.

Well why do some translators choose one over the other then? I agree it is slightly jarring

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

here it is, it was in the latter part of ch1, where it quotes Psalm 102:25-27 in reference to Christ:

Heb 1:8 "About the Son he says...
'In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
      and the heavens are the work of your hands.
 11They will perish, but you remain;
      they will all wear out like a garment.
 12You will roll them up like a robe;
      like a garment they will be changed.
   But you remain the same,
      and your years will never end.' "

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

it also calls Jesus the Old Testament God in that same passage by quoting Psa 45:6-7:

Heb 1:8 "But about the Son he says,
   'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
      and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
      therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
      by anointing you with the oil of joy.' "

[Tender Branson]

jmfcst, aren't you pretty much mainstream Christianity, except for that little deal with the Trinity?  Doesn't this seem to support it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, aren't you pretty much mainstream Christianity, except for that little deal with the Trinity?  Doesn't this seem to support it?

If you're asking "Does the fact that Jesus created the universe support the Trinity?"...then my answer is that it definitely supports the fact that Jesus is God. 

Whether or not it supports the parsing and/or numbering of Deity is something I can't answer, because I simply don't know how to take the clearly stated fact that the entire Godhead lived in Jesus Christ and then go about attempting to parse or number the Godhead.  For, to me, it doesn't matter if there are 1 or 3 or 7 or 1000, because when you have Jesus, you have all of God.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I wasn't aware that Jmfcst's view was altogether that much outside mainstream Christianity, if were talking about official doctrine and not popular conceptions.

taken together, I am not sure of the meaning of your dependent and independent clauses...but I will make my beliefs simple:

1) I believe Jesus Christ is God and was God clothed in human form when he walked the earth.
2) I believe Jesus is the creator of the universe and author of your salvation.
3) I believe Jesus Christ always existed and is omnipresent.
4) I believe that when he was on earth, the “being” that lived in the body of Jesus Christ was the complete Deity and not simply part of the Godhead.
5) I believe that when a believer in Christ receives the “Holy Spirit” they are receiving the complete Deity and not simply part of the Godhead.
6) I believe that the name of “Jesus” is the name above all names, bar none, whether in heaven or on earth; and that the name of “Jesus” is now the only name by which we must be saved; and that the name of Jesus given to the Son of God was inherited from God the Father.
7) I believe the bible is the written word of God and the standard (“canon”) of our faith.
I believe the identity of the Holy Spirit is the complete Deity and not simply part of the Godhead.
9) I believe the identity of the Jesus, the Son of God, is the complete Deity and not simply part of the Godhead.
10) I believe the identity of the God the Father is the complete Deity and not simply part of the Godhead.
11) I believe in one God, the great “I AM”, and that He is the only God.

And I believe all of the above is backed up explicitly in scripture and that all of the above is non-contradictory and that all of the above is acceptable to vast majority of Christians.

[A18]

Oh, I agree that the New Testament repeatedly identifies the Son of God with the Old Testament God. But setting aside the fact that his personal name is not used, the passages you cite are concerned precisely with elucidating Jesus's divine stature. Jude 5's flat statement that Jesus undertook an action equally attributable to the Father is not similarly "called for" by the context (his purpose being to warn against apostasy). While not inaccurate, it is awkward.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if they share the same identity, don't they also share the same actions?

[A18]

I did not accept that the New Testament treats the terms "Jesus" and "God" as if they were interchangeable; little could be more absurd. If someone had believed that they were interchangeable, then yes, he would have been obligated to say that "Jesus did x" and "God did x" were logically indistinguishable—though whether he would have actually done so is another matter.

Please state your position.

The use of "Jesus" rather than "the Lord" or "God" in Jude 5 ___.
a. Would not have been regarded by First Century Christian scribes as awkward, but has been so regarded by modern translators.
b. Has not been regarded by modern translators as awkward, but would have been so regarded by First Century Christian scribes.
c. Would be regarded as awkward by neither modern translators nor First Century Christian scribes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I did not accept that the New Testament treats the terms "Jesus" and "God" as if they were interchangeable; little could be more absurd. If someone had believed that they were interchangeable, then yes, he would have been obligated to say that "Jesus did x" and "God did x" were logically indistinguishable—though whether he would have actually done so is another matter.

Of course the terms aren’t used interchangeably in a lot of instances, for the different subjects play different roles in our salvation – e.g.  we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, cleansed by the blood of Christ, justified though faith in Christ and saved by grace through faith....so the subject choice depends a lot on what aspect of our salvation we are referring to.

Or a better example would be:  it was NOT God in spirit form that died for our sins, rather it was God clothed in human form (Jesus) that died to the flesh for our sins...i.e. it would make no sense to talk about the Holy Spirit dying for our sins.

Therefore, if we were to talk about which role of the “Trinity” died for our sins, it was the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  But if we were to talk about the identity of the person that died for our sins: since the entire Godhead lived in the body of Christ, it’s impossible to make a case that only one part of the Godhead died for our sins.  That was exactly Jesus’ point to Philip when he asked “Show us the father and that will be enough for us”.  Philip was taking the different roles and confusing them as different identities (just like the Trinity Doctrine does) and Jesus had to correct him by saying ”How is that I have been among you for so long and yet you do not know who I am?  It is the Father living in me that is doing his work, therefore whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

So, to me, since the entire Godhead is present in all three roles (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) there is no logical way to parse the identity of the Godhead, and therefore it is not heresy to state that Father and/or Son and/or Holy Spirit did xyz (regardless if xyz is the creation of the universe or the leading the Israelites out of Egypt)...which is why the New Testament does exactly that.

Does that make sense?

---

Please state your position.

The use of "Jesus" rather than "the Lord" or "God" in Jude 5 ___.
a. Would not have been regarded by First Century Christian scribes as awkward, but has been so regarded by modern translators.
b. Has not been regarded by modern translators as awkward, but would have been so regarded by First Century Christian scribes.
c. Would be regarded as awkward by neither modern translators nor First Century Christian scribes.

I have no idea regarding the opinion of the scribes, nor do I care what their opinion was.  What I do care about is what the original author wrote, and it appears that he did use “Jesus” as the actor in that verse.

[A18]

Are you sure you haven't lost track of this conversation?

I relied on the awkwardness of the "Jesus" variant in two contexts. In my original post, I argued that it demonstrated that the "Jesus" reading was more plausible. (If the original read "the Lord" or "God," it is hard to imagine a scribe substituting "Jesus." The reverse, however, is quite explicable.) And a little later, I relied on it to explain why modern translators had nonetheless generally opted for "the Lord."

In those contexts, what First Century scribes and modern translators (respectively) thought is plainly relevant.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Not sure if I have lost track...wasn't "awkwardness" a main premise of your argument? I would agree it is an interesting verse. I was just stating why the use of "Jesus" as the actor in Old Testament times wasn't "awkward" for me because of the way I interpret the identity of Christ...but I can see why many Christians would find the passage awkward.

[A18]

Not sure if I have lost track...wasn't "awkwardness" a main premise of your argument?

Well, its awkwardness to the scribes and modern translators were major premises. Concededly, different people will regard different things as awkward.

I would agree it is an interesting verse. I was just stating why the use of "Jesus" as the actor in Old Testament times wasn't "awkward" for me because of the way I interpret the identity of Christ...but I can see why many Christians would find the passage awkward.

Fair enough.

[benevolent democracy]

I believe that Jesus above all preached a message of love.
He addressed those who abused the law in his day, and made that law plain for all. I think it is good to remember that understanding the context in which his words were spoken is essential. I think its also good to remember that we are not living in the time of the old testament, and though we can have some insight, even great historical cannons, psychological profiles of peoples, and the times they lived in, we must ultimately recognize that we are not in those times.

We must look to our own time and ask ourselves, "what have we done in his name today, in our time, with our nation, with our saeducees and pharisees, our congress and senate, do they hold us to the letter of the law and not its heart?"...