New Test. Stud. vol. 33, 1987, pp.

226-243

JARL FOSSUM

KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL

OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7

In this article I shall discuss a subject which, to my knowledge, has never

been considered before - namely, whether Jude 5-7 presents Jesus as the
Angel of the Lord. A final solution to the vexed problem of the varia
lectio (or variae lectiones) in v. 5 is not of paramount importance in the
following pages, for even if it could be agreed that (6) Kvpios was the
original reading, it would have to be explained why a copyist could feel
able to substitute 'Irioovs for 'Kyrios'.1 Some see 'Jesus' as the result of a
mere 'transcriptional oversight (KC being taken for IC)',2 but text-critical
conjectures are to be dismissed if a reading can be given a reasonable
meaning,3 and the same principle would have to apply to an assumed
substitution.
Jerome, favouring the reading 'Jesus', at one place takes it to denote
Joshua,4 but this is clearly not the original implication of the reading.
It was not Joshua 'who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. . .',s and,
furthermore, this exegesis 'not only ascribes to Joshua the destruction of
Israel in the wilderness, which is impossible, but the "keeping" or "reserv-
ing" (T€Tr)pr}Kev v. 6) of the apostate angels till the judgement which is
absurd'.6 Moreover, Jerome, apparently leaning upon earlier authors
reading 'Jesus',7 can also explain the reading by referring to the idea of
the presence of the pre-existent Son in OT events,8 so it is evident that his
interpretation of 'Jesus' as Joshua is secondary.
The recognition of the pre-existent Christ in OT events is found in
writings older than the time of Jude's composition, i.e. around 100 C.E.,
as well as in works written not much later. Adapting the Jewish tradition of
the following rock, Paul writes to the Corinthians that the desert generation
'drank of a spiritual rock following [them], and the rock was the Christ'.9
According to John, probably written a bit earlier than Jude, the prophet
Isaiah saw the 'glory' of the Son upon the divine throne.10 About half a
century after Jude, Justin Martyr could refer all the OT theophanies and
names of the divine attributes to the Son. Moreover, in Justin's Dialogue
with Trypho, a Jew said to have escaped the Bar Kochba revolt, we even
find the statement: '[. . .] Jesus, the one who led your fathers out of
Egypt'.11

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 227
However, the commentators who prefer 'Kyrios' are quick to point out
that Jesus is never described as having the task of holding the fallen angels
imprisoned.12 Still, it is possible that throughout w. 5-7 Jude is adapting
certain Jewish traditions about a divinely delegated intermediary. As a
matter of fact, the Christian authors who discerned the pre-existent saviour
in OT events manifestly had Jewish forerunners. Thus the Pauline identifi-
cation of Christ with the following rock obviously assumes the Hellenistic
Jewish tradition that the rock was the pre-existent figure of Wisdom.13
John's view that Isaiah did not see 'the Lord of the hosts', i.e. God him-
self, but 'his [i.e. Jesus'] glory', also assumes Jewish exegetical tradition.
In the second century, R. Judah ben Ilai laid down: 'He who translates the
verse literally is a liar, while he who adds anything to it is a blasphemer.'14
Although R. Judah refers to the theophany in Exod 24. 10, 'And they saw
the God of Israel', there can be no doubt that the same principle would
apply to Isaiah's vision. Both the Targum to Isa 6. 1 and the Targumic
versions of Exod 24. 10 - the latter verse in Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan
actually describing a throne vision - read that it was the 'glory' (yeqara)
of God that was seen. To translate literally would give a false sense, since
no man can see God and live. On the other hand, to insert the name of an
intermediary or even the term 'angel' for God would be blasphemous.
Accordingly, the Targumists read 'the glory' of God, which cannot be
taken as the name of an intermediary, but is a metonym, a reverent cir-
cumlocution for the name of God. 15
Although John does not state outright that the Son himself was seen,16
he certainly would have been regarded as blasphemous in the eyes of the
rabbis. John may have been the first to have interpreted Isa 6. 1 in a 'blas-
phemous' way, but there undoubtedly was a Jewish preoccupation with
the vision of Isaiah which prepared the ground for his interpretation. 17
When Justin Martyr refers the OT theophanies and the names of the
divine attributes to the Son, he shows influence from a type of Judaism
like that of Philo, though less philosophical.18 The apologist repeatedly
states that the Son in his capacity as the earthly manifestation of the
deity and as carrying out the divine commandments upon earth is God's
'Angel', the Messenger of God, 19 and 'it is apparent that Justin identi-
fies the angel of the Lord (Malh'ak Yahve) with God - and finally with
Christ'. 20 Now it was an old tradition that it was not God himself but the
Angel of YHWH who led the people out of Egypt and through the desert
to the Promised Land, and Justin actually expressly identifies the Angel of
Exodus with the Son.21 It is the contention of the present paper that Jude
5-7 conceives of Jesus in like manner, for not only this task but also the
punishment of the people in the wilderness, the imprisonment of the fallen
angels, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah could be attributed
to the Angel of the Lord.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 228 JARL FOSSUM

II
Jude does not explicitly state the identity of the destroyer of Sodom and
Gomorrah, but it is to be assumed that he reckons that this executioner
was the same as the one who punished Israel in the desert and imprisoned
the fallen angels. According to the best attested reading of Jude 5, it was
Jesus who performed the two last-mentioned acts, whereas Gen 19. 24
ascribes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to YHWH/Kyrios, that
is, God. However, Justin, in his dispute with Trypho and his companions,
uses Gen 19. 24 to prove that the 'Lord' who appeared together with the
two 'men' or 'angels' to Abraham in reality was the Son:
And have you not now perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God
and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in heaven, is Lord of the two angels? [. . .]
And he is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the
heavens, that is, the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the
judgement which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord rained down upon
Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.'22

The Scriptural passage is taken by Justin as evidence for the existence of a

second Lord, a Lord next to the one in heaven.23 The former appeared on
earth and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah as the agent of the latter.
Although the Son is called 'both God and Lord' and is superior to the
two angels, he is nevertheless a kind of angel himself. Earlier in the chapter
Justin says that 'there is said to be another God and Lord subject to the
Maker of all things who is also called "Angel", because he announces to
men whatsoever the Maker of all things - above whom there is no other
God - wishes to announce to them'. 24 Thus the second Kyrios who de-
molished Sodom and Gomorrah was the special Angel of God, the first
Kyrios.
Now it is interesting that one of Trypho's companions is in sympathy
with the conviction of Justin that Gen ch. 19 knows an angelic Lord as
the ruinator of the ungodly towns. Responding to Justin's quotation of
v. 24, 25 the Jew says: 'It must of necessity be admitted that one of the
two angels who went down to Sodom and whom Moses in the Scripture
calls "Lord" is different from Him who is also God and appeared to
Abraham.' That Justin is not simply attributing his own view to the other
party is shown by the fact that the Jew's resolution is not congruent with
the opinion of Justin. The Jew actually maintains that the 'Lord' who
spoke to Abraham was God himself and not the second Lord, while he is
willing to discern the latter in one of the two angels. This is defensible on
the ground that Lot is said to have addressed the angel who asked him to
flee up into the mountains as 'Lord'. 26
There can be no doubt, however, that the Jew's statement, made in
reply to a quotation of Gen 19. 24, reveals a concern cognate to that of

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 229
Justin. The angel bears the same name as God himself, for the Hebrew
text reads 'dny, the consonants of the Qere of the Tetragrammaton, and
the LXX has 'Kyrios', the same word as that used to translate the proper
Name of God. 27 Moreover, in response to Lot's request of being allowed
to take his refuge in a village near by, the 'Lord' concedes and says: 'I am
not going to destroy the town you mention [. . .] I shall not be able to do
anything before you have come thither.' 28 Thus the Jew agrees with Jus-
tin's fundamental opinion that an angelic 'Lord' was the executioner of
the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah.
There is definite evidence that Jews could hold this view. Abba Hilfi
ben Samkai, a Palestinian amora of the second generation, is reported to
have spoken as follows in the name of R. Judah: ' "And the Lord caused
to rain, etc." refers to Gabriel; "from the Lord out of heaven" to the Holy
One, blessed be He.' 29 This interpretation is similar to that of Justin, though
the name of the angelic 'Lord' is, of course, different. According to Abba
Hilfi, the angelic YHWH who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was the
archangel Gabriel.
There can be no doubt that Abba Hilfi identifies the anonymous Angel
of the Lord in the Scripture as Gabriel, for Exod 23. 20-21 says that God
shared his own Name with this figure:

Behold, I send My Angel before you, to keep you on the way and to bring you to the
place that I have prepared. Give heed to him, and hearken to his voice, and do not rebel
against him, because he will not pardon your transgression, for My Name is in him.

Since the Scripture says that the Angel of the Lord possesses the Name
of God, the concept of which signifies the divine nature or mode of being,
the identification of this anonymous figure with one of the named arch-
angels comes perilously close to ditheism, for 'whereas the divine messenger
formerly had individuality in men's apprehension only ad hoc, and in the
errand upon which he was for the occasion employed, [ . . .] Gabriel and
Michael, [. . .] acquire a permanent function and a distinct personality'. 30
Consequently, Abba Hilfi's interpretation of Gen 19. 24 is overridden by
that of R. Eleazar, who - on the basis of the Waw in the beginning of the
verse - laid down that 'And YHWH' refers to both God and his heavenly
court. Thus God himself was also directly involved in the action described.
Both the conception of the Angel of the Lord as a 'distinct personality'
and the ascription of the devastation of Sodom and Gomorrah to this
being predate Jude. That the principal angel shared God's Name is an idea
which we find in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which is dated to the latter
part of the first century C.E. Here the angel says: 'I am called Yahoel
[ . . . ] , a power in virtue of the Ineffable Name dwelling in me.' 31 This is,
of course, an allusion to Exod 23. 21 and identifies Yahoel with the Angel
of the Lord. The name of the angel, ^N-irr, contains the Name(s) of God.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 230 JARL FOSSUM
The angel Yahoel is thus the 'Little YHWH', a cognomen of the principal
angel found in later texts. 32 When Jude and Justin take the second 'Lord'
in Gen ch. 19 to be Jesus, they implicitly appropriate this claim for the
Christian mediator.
There is clear pre-Christian evidence for the attribution of the demolition
of Sodom and Gomorrah to the Angel of the Lord. Philo of Alexandria
often discusses Gen chs. 18-19, and he can identify one of the three 'men'
as the Logos, whom he often represents as the principal angel of God, even
the Angel of the Lord. Moreover, he explicitly ascribes the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah to this being. In one place Philo uses Gen 18. 16 -
which relates that Abraham travelled along with the three men - to dem-
onstrate that 'he who follows God has of necessity as his fellow-travellers
the words and thoughts that attend Him, angels as they are often called'.33
The three men are all angels. One of them, however, is superior to the
others. Using the figure of the patriarch as a type of the man who travels
in the company of the 'angels', Philo says: 'For as long as he falls short of
perfection, he has the divine Logos (\07co deicj) as his leader, since there
is an oracle which says: "Behold, I send My Angel [. . . ] . " ' Philo now
quotes Exod 23. 20-21 in extenso. In his allegorical exposition of the
theophany to Abraham, Philo apparently is dependent upon a tradition
which identified the leader of the two 'men' or 'angels' as the Angel of the
Lord.
When attributing the ruination of Sodom and Gomorrah to the Logos,
that is, the Angel of the Lord, Philo does not use the repetition of the
word 'Kyrios' in Gen 19. 24 as proof, for he does not read KVpiov &%
odpavov. In substantiation of his thesis that the word 'sun' can denote the
'divine Logos', Philo quotes Gen 19. 23-24 and equates the 'sun' in v. 23
with the 'Lord' in v. 24:
It is of the divine Logos that it is said: 'The sun went forth upon the earth, and Lot
entered into Zoar, and the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire.'
For the Logos of God, when it arrives at our earthly composition, in the case of those
who are akin to virtue and turn away to her, gives help and succour, thus affording
them a refuge and perfect safety, but sends upon her adversaries irreparable ruin.34
Here the (sun-)Logos is identified with the 'Lord' who rained brimstone
and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. 35 This is similar to the interpretation
of Justin and Abba Hilfi, both of whom held that this act was performed
by an intermediary. Although Philo differs from these teachers in not
finding God, too, in v. 24, there can be no doubt that his exegesis is a
variant of the basic theme that an angelic 'Lord' destroyed the ungodly
towns as the agent of God. 36
Still another pre-Christian witness to this theme is found in the Book
of Wisdom, which - in contrast to Philo's allegorical expositions of the
Scripture - sticks to the historical aspect of the narrative and evidences an

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 231
intermediator who is truly personal. The Book of Wisdom identifies the
angelic 'Lord' who saved Lot as Sophia, a veritable hypostasis:
While the ungodly were perishing, Wisdom delivered a righteous man, when he fled
from the fire that descended out of heaven on Pentapolis, to whose wickedness a
smoking waste still witnesses, and plants bearing fair fruit that does not come to ripe-
ness. Yea, and a disbelieving soul has a memorial there: a pillar of salt still standing.
For having passed Wisdom by, not only were they disabled from recognizing the things
which are good, but they also left behind them for human life a monument of their
folly, so that wherein they had offended could not but be known.37
Although the passage does not state expressly that it was Wisdom who
destroyed the godless towns, it certainly must be understood as implying
that the intermediary who saved Lot was the same as the one who inflicted
judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah, for - as we have seen - Gen 19.
21-22 maintains that the 'Lord' who rescued Lot was the same as the one
who afterwards annihilated the ungodly. Thus the Book of Wisdom pre-
sents a view which is quite similar to that proffered by the Jew in Justin's
Dialogue.
That Sophia in this apocryphon is seen as the intermediary possessing
the Name of God is also perceived from her being merged with the. divine
Logos as well as with the Angel of the Lord.38 In 18. 15 the Logos of God
is said to have descended from the divine throne and killed the firstborn
of the Egyptians, and the description of the Logos in the next verse clearly
refers to the representation of the Angel of the Lord in 1 Chron 21. 16.
In Wis 9. 1-2 Logos and Sophia are equated, and in v. 10 it is the latter
who descends from the divine throne. Furthermore, as we shall see below,
later in ch. 10 Wisdom is identified with the Angel of Exodus, that is, the
Angel of YHWH.
It is thus evident that when Jude 7 attributes the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah to Jesus, this implies that the Son is conceived of as the
Angel of the Lord, the deputy of God possessing the Divine Name. At the
beginning of our era, this figure was no longer an ad hoc agent, as he still
is in the Bible, but had acquired a personal name and individuality. Some
Christians no doubt found the adaptation of this portrait suitable in their
representation of Jesus.

in
The second example of the kind of punishment awaiting the false teachers
in Jude is also a clear example of how Jesus could be credited with a divine
act which had already been attributed by Jews to the principal angel. V. 6
says that Jesus is detaining the fallen angels, by whom we are to under-
stand the 'sons of God', who - according to Gen 6. 1-4 - formed unions
with the 'daughters of men'. Jewish legend elaborated upon this brief
notice, identifying the 'sons of God' as angels and relating that they had

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 232 JARL FOSSUM
transgressed the command of God and thus had been shut up in prison.39
A couple of texts are of special importance for the exegesis of Jude 6. In
1 Enoch 10. 4-6 it is said:
And further the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel by his hand and his feet, and cast
him into the darkness; and split open the desert, which is in Dudael, and throw him
therein. And place upon him jagged and sharp rocks, and cover him with darkness,
and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see the light. And
on the great day of judgement he shall be cast into the fire.'40
Here God assigns to one of the four 'angels of the presence'41 the task
of imprisoning and retaining Azazel, the leader of the fallen angels, until
the day of judgement. Now in 1 Enoch Azazel vies with Shemyaza for the
position of being the chief of the fallen angels,42 and 10. 11-12 mentions
particularly the latter's imprisonment and detainment, which are ascribed
to Michael, another angel of the presence:
And the Lord said to Michael: 'Go, bind Shemyaza and the others with him who have
associated themselves with the women so as to have corrupted themselves with them
in all their uncleanness. When all their sons kill each other and they see the destruction
of their beloved ones, bind them for seventy generations under the hills of the earth
until the day of their judgement and of their consummation, until the judgement
which is for all eternity is accomplished.'43
In this text not only the chief offender is mentioned, but also the fallen
angels in general, as is the case in Jude 6. Furthermore, the two texts
show additional similarities with Jude, 'and angels [. . .] he has kept in
everlasting bonds under darkness for [the] judgement of [the] great day'.
Thus 1 Enoch 10. 4 and 11-12 relate that the principal angel was bid to
'bind' the head offender and his angels, w. 4-5 state that the detainment
was to be undergone under 'darkness' and 'for ever',44 and v. 6 says that
the detainment will not end before 'the great day of judgement'.
Now it is well known that Jude made use of the First Book of Enoch,
even citing 1 Enoch 1. 9 in w. 14-15. Since modern commentators actually
do not find it implausible that 1 Enoch ch. 10 served as an exemplar for
Jude 6, it would not seem improbable that Jude even thought of Jesus as
the notable angel who was holding the fallen angels imprisoned.
At this point a digression into the matter of Jude's citation of 1 Enoch
1. 9 may be allowed. Jude cites Enoch as saying: 'Behold, the Lord (Kyrios)
shall come with ten thousands of his holy ones.' The different versions of
1 Enoch 1. 9 do not have an expressed subject of the prophetic perfect,
but it is to be inferred that this is the 'Great Holy One' of v. 3. Jude, how-
ever, is probably indicating the Son. As a matter of fact, even scholars
who regard 'Kyrios' in the sense 'God' as the original in Jude 5 think that
the Kyrios in v. 14 is Jesus. 45 But why reckon with a different Kyrios in
v. 5, when the tasks ascribed to this figure are seen to have been attribu-
table to a divinely commissioned agent, even the Angel of the Lord,
possessing God's Name?

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 233
Let it here also be noted that the received text of Mai 3. lb-c prophesies
that a special Angel identified by the Divine Name, YHWH/Kyrios, shall
come and destroy the godless,46 for there actually was an archaic Christo-
logy which referred this passage to Jesus. 47 The author of Jude, who was
probably a Jewish Christian, may have been influenced by this tradition
when appropriating Enoch's description of the manifestation of God as
the eschatological judge for Jesus, the 'Lord'. 48

IV

Returning to w. 5-7, we must now note that Jude's belief that it was Jesus
who destroyed 'the ones not believing' - that is, those of the desert gener-
ation who lost faith in God's promises and were exterminated by a plague,
as related in Num ch. 14 - can also find a model in what was predicated of
the Angel of the Lord. It is possible that it is this event to which Paul refers
when saying that the people who murmured 'were destroyed by the De-
stroyer'. 49 This substantive, 6Xodpevrq<;, is a hapax legomenon, but there
can be no doubt that Paul is thinking of a figure like rVTHPnn/d dXedpevcou
in Exod 12. 23, rrnpnn "js^an/o djyeXoq 6 i^oXedpevuv in 1 Chron 21. 12,
15, or 6 6Xodpevu>u in Wis 18. 25. This figure was identified as the Angel
of the Lord. In the Targumic versions of Exod 12. 23, for instance, the
'Destroyer' is called an angel,50 and the Samaritans explicitly identified
the slayer of the firstborn of the Egyptians as the Angel of the Lord. sl
The text of 1 Chron 21. 12, 15 expressly identifies the destroying angel
as the Angel of the Lord. The 'Destroyer' in Wis 18. 25 is perhaps called
'angel' as well as 'chastiser' in v. 18, 52 and 4 Mace 7. 11 names him the
'angel of fire'. Moreover, immediately before the description of the punish-
ment of the Israelites in Wis 18. 20-25, the Egyptians are said to have been
punished by God's Logos being described in terms of the Angel of the Lord
in 1 Chron 21. 16, where the context calls him the 'destroying angel', and
so it would seem plausible that the author of the Book of Wisdom con-
ceived of the 'Destroyer' in the same manner. 53
The majority of exegetes think that Paul as well as the author of the
Book of Wisdom refers to Num ch. 16 - which describes the death of the
people who opposed Moses and Aaron - and not to Num ch. 14, but this
question is of less importance in this connection. The important point
is that the Angel of the Lord could be seen as the executioner of the
divine punishment of the people during the desert wanderings. For Jude
it would obviously be perfectly natural that it was the Angel of the Lord,
having detained the fallen angels in primeval times and later destroyed the
people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who had struck the unfaithful of the
desert generation with a plague.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 234 JARL FOSSUM

Jude 5 says that the one who destroyed the unfaithful Israelites in the
desert was the same as the one who first had led the people out of Egypt,
and there was a quite ancient tradition which attributed the latter act to
the Angel of the Lord. However, most commentators, especially those
who choose the reading 'Kyrios' as the original, point to Exod 12. 51,
where we read: 'And it came to pass in that day that the Lord brought
out (£%r)yaye Kvptos) the children of Israel from the land of Egypt with
their forces.'54 The connotation of this passage would represent no obstacle
to the view that it was Jesus who was the subject of the acts described in
Jude 5-7, for Jesus obviously was seen as the Angel of the Lord, who
possessed God's own Name.
Moreover, Jude 5 can also be seen to carry an association to Num 20.
16, which reads: 'And we cried to the Lord, and the Lord heard our voice
and sent an angel who brought us out of Egypt (dnoareiXa<; dyye'Kov, ££77-
yayev i)(i&<; £i- AlyvnTOv) [ . . . ] . ' It is not without interest that Targum
Neofiti has represented the MT XX"1 by 2W, which can be seen to correspond
to aojfco in Jude 5. It has been shown above that Jude apparently conceives
of Jesus as the Angel of YHWH when making him the subject of the acts
described in w . 6-7, and v. 5 would seem to convey the same image of the
saviour.
There was, as a matter of fact, a trend which developed the tradition that
the Angel of the Lord was the saviour of Israel from Egyptian bondage,
and this trend caused the more monarchian circles some worry. Whereas
the MT text of Isa 63. 9 actually can be understood to say that the 'Angel
of the Presence' delivered Israel,55 the LXX is manifestly polemical against
such an idea: ' [ . . . ] and He became to them deliverance out of all their
affliction: not a messenger (7rpeaj3uc), nor an angel, but He Himself saved
(avrbs iocjaev) them, because He loved them and spared them. He Himself
redeemed (cu)r<k eXvipcboaro) them [.. .] ,' 56
The rescue out of Egypt was one of the acts which the rabbis vehemently
underlined as having been performed 'not by an angel and not by a messen-
ger'. 57 Thus the Passover Haggadah states in a commentary on Deut 26. 8:
' "And YHWH brought us out of Egypt": Not by an angel, and not by a
seraph, and not by a messenger, but the Holy One, blessed be He, in His
glory and by Himself.'58
We must also take note of a rabbinic tradition which maintains that
although the angel Metatron is to be acknowledged as the Angel of the
Lord described in Exod 23. 20-21 and the possessor of a name 'like that
of his Master', he is not to be accepted as Israel's xpnriD, 'messenger' or
'deliverer'.59 The Scriptural proof is taken from Exod 33. 15, where Moses
conjures God that if his 'Presence' does not go before the people, they

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 235
60
must be allowed to stay in the wilderness. This tradition cannot be dated
with any certainty before the third century C.E., but the ascription of a
personal name and a distinct personality to the Angel of Exodus can be
shown to be much older. As we shall see below, various groups identified
this figure differently, and 'Metatron' is a later name of the Angel. For the
Christians this figure could only be Jesus.
Justin Martyr is clearly adapting a Jewish tradition about the Angel of
Exodus when he goes into a fanciful exegesis to show that the proper
Name of God is 'Jesus':
Moreover, in the Book of Exodus we have also seen that the Name of God Himself,
which - He says - was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was 'Jesus', and it was
declared mysteriously by Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spoke to Moses:
"Say to this people: 'Behold, I send My angel before your face, to keep you in the
way, to bring you into the land which I have prepared for you. Give heed to him and
obey him; do not disobey him, for he will not draw back from you, since My Name is
in him."" Consider well that he who led your fathers into the land is called by this
name, even 'Jesus', and first called 'Auses'. For if you realize this, you will also under-
stand that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'For My Name is in him', was 'Jesus'.61
Since Justin regards the Angel of the Lord as a form of appearance of the
Son, he ingeniously equates the Angel in the Exodus narrative with Moses'
successor, who was first called 'Auses' (Osee),62 but later received the name
'Joshua', which is rendered 'Jesus' in the LXX. This equation, however,
cannot be made to harmonize with Justin's earlier identification of the
'captain of the host of the Lord' who appeared to Joshua 63 as Jesus, 64 and
it must obviously be seen as a forced attempt at demonstrating the identity
of the Angel of Exodus with the Christian mediator. That this argument is
a rejoinder to certain traditions identifying the Angel by a different name
should be apparent.
Moreover, since Exod 23. 21 says that God has put his Name into the
Angel, Justin even absurdly infers that the proper Name of God is 'Jesus'.
This would be like maintaining that God's Name is 'Metatron' on the
ground that the angel Metatron is said to have a name which is 'like that
of his Master'. The import of the statement, however, is that the Angel has
been confided the Tetragrammaton, as indeed is seen from the Talmudical
passage, where God's words in Exod 24. 1, 'Come up to YHWH', is ex-
plained as 'Come up to Metatron' on the ground that Metatron is the
Angel described in Exod 23. 20-21. 6 S In the case of Yahoel the personal
name of the Angel really is identical with the Name(s) of God, but this
was obviously no requisite.
It would not have been impossible for Jude to have anticipated Justin's
identification of the Angel of Exodus as Jesus. It has been seen above that
Philo can identify the Logos, the divine agent, with the Angel in Exod 23.
20-21, 6 6 and this is one of the instances where Philo's Logos, which is not
really personal, would seem to be a philosophical adaptation of an inter-

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 236 JARL FOSSUM
mediary figure of a more mythological nature. In the wisdom literature
the intermediator has a personal name, being called simply 'Sophia', 67 and
is the subject of different acts belonging to a mythological framework.68
Whatever is the ultimate origin of the Wisdom myth, in Judaism Wisdom
has assimilated the Biblical figure of the Angel of the Lord. In Sir ch. 24 -
where the identification of Wisdom with the Torah is probably the work
of a later hand contriving to undermine the conception of the former as a
hypostasis - Wisdom, summarizing her history before she was established
on Zion, declares: '[. . .] my throne was in a Pillar of Cloud'. 69 While the
Elohist source ascribes the guidance of the people through the desert to
the Angel of the Lord, the Yahwist says : 'YHWH went before them by
day in a Pillar of Cloud, which showed them the way, and by night in a
Pillar of Fire, which shone for them.' 70 The author of the Book of Sirach
caa thus be seen to have substituted Wisdom for the Divine Name, which
was known to have been shared by the Angel of the Lord. 71
Moreover, there was in fact an old interpretation which conceived of
the Angel of the Lord as having been veiled in the Pillar. Philo considers it
likely that the Pillar of Cloud and Fire enclosed 'one of the lieutenants
(virapxiov) of the Great King, an unseen angel (dQawtis dyyeXoc)'-72 A
Jewish tradition identified this angel as Michael. Pirke de R. Eliezer relates
that when the Israelites were about to cross the Sea, 'He [i.e. God] sent
Michael, and he became a wall of fire between Israel and the Egyptians.
The Egyptians wanted to follow after Israel, but they were unable to come
[near] because of the fire.' 73
The tradition recorded in Pirke de R. Eliezer alludes to Exod 14. 19-20
as well as to Num 20. 16 ('He sent an angel'). In the former passage, we
read:
Then God's Angel, who went before the host of Israel, changed place and went behind
them, and the pillar of Cloud, which went before them, changed place and took its
stand behind them, so that it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp
of Israel. [...] and the camps did not come near to one another the whole night.
Pirke de R. Eliezer assumes the close association or even identification of
the Angel with the Pillar which is the result of the combination of E and J
in the Biblical text. That this Angel is the Angel of the Lord, who later led
the people into the Holy Land, is apparent, and the Targums substitute
the 'Angel of the Lord' for the 'Angel of God'. According to a certain
Jewish tradition, this Angel was Michael.74 According to another tradition,
however, the intermediary who was veiled in the Pillar was Sophia.75
The Book of Wisdom describes Sophia's activities during the Exodus
more fully:
She delivered a holy people and a blameless seed from a nation of oppressors. [. . .]
She rendered unto holy men a reward of their toils; she guided them along a marvellous
way, and became unto them a covering in the daytime and a light of stars through the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 237
night. She brought them over the Red Sea and led them through much water, but their
enemies she drowned, and out of the bottom of the deep she cast them up. 76
Here Wisdom is represented as having led the people out of Egypt, having
travelled before them through the desert in the Pillar of Cloud and Fire,
having escorted them across the Sea, and having destroyed the Egyptians
who followed them. Wisdom has here clearly absorbed the figure of the
Angel of the Lord, for all these tasks could be attributed to the latter as
God's agent.77 When Jude 5 represents the Son as the one who led the
Israelites out of Egypt, traditions such as those surveyed here must have
been exemplary.

VI

We can thus conclude that the reading 'Jesus' in Jude 5 implies that the
Son is modelled on an intermediary figure whose basic constituent is the
Angel of the Lord. If'Kyrios' was the original reading, a copyist apparently
took this to indicate the Son on the ground that w. 5-7 describe acts
which could be attributed to the Angel of the Lord, who was said to share
God's Name and could even be designated by the Tetragrammaton or its
Greek equivalent 'Kyrios'. Since v. 4 ends with the phrase 'our only Master
and Lord (titipvov), Jesus Christ', 78 it may even be that this was a correct
interpretation. 79
On external evidence, however, 'critical principles seem to require the
adoption of '\r\oovs, which admittedly is the best attested reading among
Greek and versional witnesses'.80 Considering the internal evidence, we
may begin with noting that this undoubtedly is the lectio difficilior and
thus should be regarded as original. Many scholars, however, think that
the reading is 'difficult to the point of impossibility',81 but we have now
seen that it can be accounted for by the identification of Jesus with the
Angel of the Lord.82 Furthermore, this explains the variants 'Kyrios' and
Theos' as having been substituted by a copyist not familiar with the idea
of Jesus as the Angel of the Lord. 83 It is true that Jude elsewhere writes
'(Lord) Jesus Christ', but, weighing all the evidence, it would seem that
Jude some fifty years before Justin Martyr was the first to use 'Jesus' as a
name of the Son also in his pre-existence.84

NOTES
[1] ('O) 0ed<r is rather poorly attested. However, F. Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der
Brief des Judas (Hallejh S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1885) 324, conjectured
that the original read 0C and that an indistinctly written Theta gave rise to the readings IC and KC
as well as to the right construalfleo'cW. Grundmann, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des
Petrus (THKNT 15; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1974) 33, n. 30, finds this conjecture
"worthy of consideration'. Spitta supported his conjecture on the reading 6 9edc in the parallel in

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 238 JARL FOSSUM

2 Pet 2. 4, but he held Jude to be dependent upon 2 Pet, whereas it is now generally agreed that
the relationship is to be explained the other way round.
Since P?2 reads Beds Xptardq, S. Kubo, P" and the Codex Vaticams (StudDoc 27; Salt Lake
City: University of Utah, 1965) 141, argues that the original reading was theos. But Kubo exagger-
ates the importance of this papyrus, which contains many errors; cf. K. H. Schelkle, Die Petrus-
briefe. Der Judasbrief (HTKNT 13/2; Freiburg-Basel-Vienna: Herder, 1961) 144.
[2] B. M. Metzger et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London & New
York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 726. See already R. Knopf, Die Briefe Petri und Judd (Meyer
12; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912) 221. Metzger and A. Wikgren, who dissent from
the majority of the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies, consider it a possibility that
F. J. A. Hort wasjright 'that the original text had only 6, and that OTIO was read as OTIIC and
perhaps as OTIKC ('Notes on Select Readings', in B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The Text of
the New Testament in the Original Greek [2 vols.; Cambridge: MacMillan, 1881] 2. 106). Both
RSV and The Complete Bible. An American Translation (1923 and reprints) represent this con-
jecture. However, already Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus 323-4, launched a convincing criti-
cism of Hort.
[3] With regard to Jude 5, see J. Rendel Harris, Testimonies II (Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1920) 51-2. On the carefulness with which text-critical conjectures must be employed, see B. M.
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 182-5.
[4J Adv Iov 1.21. So also E. E. Kellett, 'Note on Jude 5', ExpTim 15 (1903/4) 381. Cf. NEBmg.
[5] J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Black's New Testament
Commentaries; London: Black, 1969) 255.
[6] M. Black, 'Critical and Exegetical Notes on Three New Testament Texts', Apophoreta. Fest-
schrift fiir Ernst Haenchen (BZNW 30; Berlin: deGruyter, 1964) 45.
[7] Didymus, De Trin 1.19; Origen, in MS 1739m8. Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus 323, is
palpably wrong that Didymus, writing Kiipux; 'ITJCTOUI;, was interpreting the reading 'Kyrios'; this
author, like Origen, who reads likewise, obviously worked from an exemplar which had 'Jesus'.
[8] Comm in Epist ad Gal 1.2, ad 2.16. Here Jerome is associating Jude 5 with John 12.41. See
also Epist 46, Paul et Eust ad Marcell 7, where Jerome emphatically denies that 'Jesus' is Joshua. It
is incomprehensible that Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus 323, also reckons that Jerome worked
from a 'Kyrios' exemplar, for this father reads simply 'Jesus' in his quotations of Jude 5. Spitta
also refers to a catena ad v. 7 which says that 6 /xdcoc 6eo7rdrr)<; 6 Kupioc 'Inoovq XpiorAc (Catenae
Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum [8 vols.; ed. J. A. Cramer; Oxford: 1840; reprinted
Hildesheim: Olm, 1967] 8. 158) led the people out of Egypt through Moses, but this phrase is
taken from v. 4.
[9] 1 Cor 10. 4. In v. 9 (var. lect.) Paul says that some of the desert generation tempted 'Christ'.
He alludes to Num 21. 5-6, where, however, we read that 'the people spoke against God and
Moses'.
[10] 12. 41. The Evangelist probably includes the future glory of the Son in the prophetic vision.
According to Heb 11. 26 and 1 Pet 1. 11, the godly under the old dispensation knew about the
future suffering and exaltation of Christ.
[11] Dial 120.3. However, C. D. Osburn, 'The Text of Jude 5', Bib 62 (1981) 107-15, is wrong
that 'the view that Jesus has saved the people out of Egypt and subsequently destroyed those who
did not remain faithful is frequently observed to be a common feature in second-century litera-
ture' (112), for the latter act is never attributed to Jesus.
[12] E.g., J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Westminster Commen-
taries; London: Westminster, 1934) 201; Kelly, Commentary 255; J. Cantinant, Les Epttres de
Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude (Sources Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1973) 302; E. Fuchsand P. Rey-
mond, La deuxieme ipttre de Saint Pierre. L'ipitre de Saint Jude (CNT, deuxieme serie 13b;
Neuchatel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1980) 162. Cf. already Knopf, Briefe 221.
[13] Philo, Leg all 11.86. Cf. Det pot ins 118. For a full discussion of the 'accompanying rock-
well' motif, see R. Horsley, Paul and the Pneumatikoi First Corinthians investigated in Terms of
the Conflict between two Different Religious Mentalities (Diss.; Harvard, 1970) 226-50.
[14] Tosefta, Meg 4.41; Bab. Kidd 49a.
[15] On the above, see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon: Irish University, 1972)
48-9, 99.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 239

(16] Targum to Isa 6. 5, however, says that Isaiah saw TWDB? "lp"1 of the King of the worlds',
and so it might be asked whether John represents the Son as the Shekinah. In later Jewish mysti-
cism, 'Shekinah' could be used interchangeably with the 'Kabod' as the name of the divine mani-
festation upon the heavenly throne. Thus, in Ma'aseh Merkabah, R. Akiba, a type of the mystics
who peformed heavenly journeys and beheld the Glory, says: ' [ . . . ] I gazed upon the Shekinah
and saw everything that they do before His throne of glory' (§ 32, at the beginning, in G. G.
Scholcm, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition [New York: The
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1960] 115). In this connection it may also be noted
that the Samaritan theologian Marqah, referring explicitly to the floor of sapphire stone under the
feet of the 'God of Israel' in Exod 24. 10, speaks of the 'throne for His Kabod' (The Samaritan
Liturgy [ed. A. E. Cowley, Oxford: Clarendon, 1909] 25, line 15). To Marqah, the Kabod is ident-
ical with the Angel of the Lord; see my The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (Wissenschaft-
liche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1/36; Tiibingen: Mohr, 1985) 223-5. In the Pseudo-
Cyprianic treatise De Centesima 216, the Son is said to be the first among the angels and the 'Lord
Sabaoth' whom Isaiah saw. Cf. the Jewish tradition that 'Sabaoth' is the name of an angel; see
Origen, Comm in Joh 1.31 and further the literature cited by J. Barbel, Christos Angelos (Theo-
phaneia 3; Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1941) 193, n. 57.
[17] F. W. Young, 'A Study of the Relation of Isaiah to the Fourth Gospel', ZNW 46 (1955) 215-
21, has shown that the vision of Isaiah gave rise to much speculation already in pre-Christian times.
[18] E. R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena: Frommansche Buchhandlung,
1923) 114-15, 141-7, 155-9, 168-73. Cf. D. C. Trakatellis, The Pre-Existence of Christ in the
Writings of Justin Martyr (HTR, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 6; Missoula: Scholars Press,
1976)60-77,85.
[19] Barbel, Christos Angelos 52-63.
[20] Trakatellis, Pre-Existence 61, n. 20 (continued from the preceding page).
[21] See below, p. 235. [22] 56.22.
[23] Gen 19. 24 interpreted Christologically appears in different contexts in Justin's Dialogue,
and W. Bousset (Jiidisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom [FRLANT 23; Go'ttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915] 308) has suggested that this text belonged to a collection
of Messianic proof-texts circulated by early Christian teachers. If this is right, Jude or his copyist
may have based himself upon such a collection of testimonia.
A tradition preserved in Bab. Sanh 38b relates that a min argued before R. Ishmael ben Yosi
(170-200 C.E.) that Gen 19. 24 should read 'from Him' instead of 'from the Lord'. The min thus
reserves the Tetragrammaton for God's agent appearing on earth.
[24] 56.4. Cf. the similar statement in § 10. /
[25] Actually the first of the three quotations of this verse in the chapter; see 56.12.
[26] Gen 19. 18.
[27] Vv. 17-22 have probably been inserted later. Although the one addressed by Lot originally
was understood to be God himself, the context makes him one of the two angels who went to
Sodom; see w. 1, 13. Thus the consonant text should be read 'adorn, 'my lord', and not "adbnay,
'(my) Lord'. A copyist has understood the Hebrew consonants as 'adbnay, 'my lords', for v. 19
says that Lot spoke 'to them'. Compare that the LXX, Peshitta, and Vg have both angels addressing
Lot in v. 17. But Lot is speaking with a single person in w. 19-22.
[28] Vv. 21-22. Cf. v. 13, where the two angels say: '[the Lord] has sent us to destroy it'.
[29] Gen. R. 51.2.
[30] G. F. Moore, Judaism 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1927; reprinted New York:
Schocken, 1971) 403.
[31] 10.9.
[32] This is a name of the angel Metatron in 3 Enoch; see below, n. 65.
[33] MigrAbrl73. [34] Somn 1.85.
[35] In an adaptation of Sarah's words in Gen 18. 12, Philo construes the 'lord' as the Logos, the
chief of the three 'men' speaking to Abraham: '[...] she laughed in her mind and said: "Not yet
has happiness befallen me until now, but my Lord, the divine Logos (6 6£ Kupid? nov eeioc \6yoq),
is greater"' (Leg all HI.218).
[36] The min discussing with R. Ishmael ben Yosi also found only one Lord, even the divine agent,
in the verse.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 240 JARL FOSSUM
[371 10. 6-8; adapting the translation inAPOT I.
[38] For the merger of Wisdom with the figure of the Logos and the principal angel - as well as
other intermediaries - in different Hellenistic Jewish quarters, see C. H.Talbert, 'The Myth of a
Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity', NTS 22 (1976) 426-9.
[39] E.g., 1 Enoch chs. 6-16, passim; 18. 11-19. 3; ch. 21; 2 Bar 56. 12-13; Jub 4. 15;5. 1-6;
CD 2. 18-21; lQapGen 2. 1, 16; 2 Enoch ch. 7; ch. 18. Cf. T Reub 5. 6; T Naph 3. 5; Josephus,
Ant 1.3.1. See further the late texts cited by Spitta, .Brie/327.
[40] A summary of 10. 4-6 is found in 88.1, where, however, the angel punishing Azazel is un-
named.
[41] In 9. 1 they are named as Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel. In 40.9 and 71.8-9, Phanuel
is substituted for Uriel. In ch. 20 we have the concept of the seven archangels. Cf. 90.21.
[42] Azazel (6.8, Asael) is represented as the first of the fallen angels in ch. 8; 10.4, 8; 13.1.
Shemyaza is the chief in 6.3, 7; 69.2.
[43] I have followed the group of Greek fragments which reads 'bind' in v. 11. The Ethiopic text
reads 'tell'. On v. 12, 'for seventy generations under the hills of the earth', see M. A. Knibb, ed. and
trans, (in consultation with E. Ullendorf), The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon,
1978) 2. 89. In 88.3 there is a summary of the text where, however, the agent punishing the fallen
angels is anonymous.
[44] In 88.1 the chief offender is 'bound' and cast into an 'abyss' which is 'narrow, and deep, and
dark". In v. 3 the fallen angels are 'bound' and thrown 'into a chasm of the earth'.
[45] E.g., Schelkle, Petrusbriefe 164; Kelly, Commentary 276; M. Black, 'The Maranatha Invo-
cation and Jude 14, 15 (I Enoch 1:9)', Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour
of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; London: Cambridge University,
1973) 194; J. Vanderkam, 'The Theophany of Enoch i 3b-7,9', VT 23 (1973) 148; C. Osburn,
'The Christological Use of I Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14,15', NTS 23 (1977) 337 (as opposed to his later
work, 'Text', Osburn here espouses the reading 'Kyrios' in v. 5). Cf. also E. M. Sidebottom, James,
Jude and 2 Peter (The New Century Bible, New Edition; London: Nelson, 1967) 90; Fuchs and
Reymond, £p(tre 17'4.
[46] V. lc apparently does not belong to the original, but its insertion does effect the kind of
identity between YHWH/Kyrios in v. 1 b and the 'Angel of the Covenant' which is characteristic of
the relation between God and the Angel of the Lord in the older parts of the Bible. That the 'Angel
of the Covenant' in v. lc in actual fact has to be understood as the Angel of the Lord may be in-
ferred by the help of Judg 2. 1-5, where the conclusion of the covenant between God and Israel
is ascribed to the Angel of the Lord. The name 'Angel of the Covenant' may also allude to the idea
known from later sources that the Law was given by an angel. Cf. below, n. 74. The punitive
function of the Angel of the Lord will be dealt with forthwith.
[47] This is implied by the NT identification of John the Baptist as the eschatological Elijah and
Christ's forerunner, for Mai 4.5 identifies the 'angel' or 'messenger' surveying the way of the 'Lord'/
'Angel of the Covenant' as Elijah. J. A. T. Robinson, 'Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detec-
tion', NTS 4 (1957/8) 263-81, arguing that it was Jesus who was originally seen as the eschatologi-
cal Elijah, says that 'in the prophecy as we now have it, and as the men of the New Testament read
it, this coming one is subsequently identified as 'Elijah the prophet' (Mai. iv.5)' (264); but this is
wrong. In the prophecy as we now have it, the 'Lord'/'Angel of the Covenant' is described as
coming (the verbs used are TJKCJ and <jpx°Mai) to judge the people, whereas the 'angel' or 'messen-
ger' in 3.1a and Elijah in 4.5-6 are described as being sent (^anooreWuj, dnoareWui) by God in
order to 'survey the way before' him, 'before the great and glorious Day of the Lord comes', lest
the Lord should 'come and smite the earth grievously'. This was also as the men of the New Testa-
ment read it: in Matt 11. 10 = Luke 7. 27 and Mark 1. 2 (cf. Mark 9. 12 = Matt 17. 11; Luke 1. 17),
Mai 3. la is referred to the Baptist, while Matt 3. 11-12 = Luke 3. 16-17 and Matt 11.3= Luke 7.
19 (cf. Mark 1. 7; John 1. 15, 26) identify Jesus with the Lord/Angel 'coming' to judgement in
Mai 3.1b-3,5; 4.1. But see Matt 11.14.
In the Jewish sources which depict Elijah as God's own forerunner and thus as a Messianic
figure, the prophet - although he in his historical life was known to have destroyed his enemies by
bringing down fire from heaven (1 Kings 1. 10, 12; Sir 48.3; Luke 9. 54; cf. Rev 11.5)- does not
seem to be represented as an eschatological judge with reference to Mai ch. 3 and 4.1; see the sum-
mary of the sources by J. Jeremias, "H\(e)ia<r\ TDNT 2 (1964 and reprints) 931-4, 939-40. It
appears to be correct that there once existed an Elijah Christology, for there has been produced
evidence to the effect that the Gospel of John has used, but played down, a source identifying

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 241

Jesus with the eschatological Elijah; see of late J. L. Martyn, 'We have found Elijah", Jews, Greeks
and Christians. Essays in Honor of William David Davies (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 21;
ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 181-219. But the judicial function of
Christ does not come into view in this layer of tradition.
[48] The authors who think that the Lord in v. 14 is Jesus point to Matt 25. 31 (cf. 16. 27; Mark
13. 26-27 = Matt 24. 30-31) and 2 Thess 1. 7-8 (cf. 1 Thess 4. 16). The first passage teaches that
the Son of Man shall come with his angels to judge men, and this figure could easily have been
fused with the 'Lord'/'Angel' described as 'coming' to judgement in Mai 3.1b-c. Dan 7. 13 repre-
sents the 'one like a son of man' as 'coming' (ipxoixevos) with the clouds, and this being would
seem to be conceived of as a judge being seated by the side of God (v. 9, 'thrones'). Furthermore,
v. 10a and v. 11 speak of a river of fire in which God's enemy is going to be annihilated, and the
Christology referring Mai 3.1b-3, 5 and 4.1 to Jesus actually states that he will 'baptize' with fire.
In 2 Thess 1. 7-8 the 'Lord Jesus' who is expected to come from heaven with his angels is said to
be going to destroy his enemies with fire. Cf. Justin, 1 Apol 52.3. For the Son of Man as the prin-
cipal angel, see below, n. 72.
[49] 1 Cor 10. 10. This statement is made right after it has been said that those who tempted
'Christ' were destroyed by serpents; cf. above, n. 9. A commentator who thinks that Paul had Num
ch. 14 in mind is F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 225.
[50] The tradition isobviously old, for Ezekiel the Tragedian, who lived in the second pre-Christian
century, speaks of the 'Destroyer' as the 'fearful (Sewoq) angel' (Exagoge 156).
[51] Fossum, Name 225-6.
[52] If Sx^o" is to be emended to &rte~Kov instead of x^ov.
[53] The Angel of the Lord is carrying out a punitive function also in 2 Sam 24. 16 and 2 Kings
19. 35.
[54] E.g., K. Aland et al., ed., The Greek New Testament (3rd ed.; Stuttgart: The United Bible
Societies, 1975) 832; Fuchs and Reymond, Epitre 163.
[55] So RSV, The Holy Bible (New York International Bible Society; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1973, reprinted 1978), The Prophets. A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures (2nd ed.; Phila-
delphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1978), as well as the majority of the older
exegetes. Rashi takes the 'Angel of the Presence' to be Michael. In Jub 1.29 the 'Angel of the
Presence' is said to have gone 'before the host of Israel', an expression which obviously alludes to
Exod 14. 19; 23. 20; 32. 34; 33. 2. The Angel in Jubilees is probably Michael; see below, n. 74.
Isa 63. 9 may also be read as a polemic against the idea that it was a 'messenger' (*1 [*] X) and
'angel', and not God's own 'Presence', that saved the people. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (Gottin-
ger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3/1; Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914) 436,
who chooses this interpretation, takes the Divine 'Presence' as an equivalent to the Angel of the
Lord. The Angel of Exodus and God's 'Presence' are charged interchangeably with the function of
leading the Israelites in Exod 32. 34; 33. 2, 14-15.
[56] Cf. Eccles 5. 6, where the LXX has changed 'God's Angel', before whom man has to render
account, to 'God's Presence'.
[57] J. Goldin, 'Not By Means of an Angel and not By Means of a Messenger', Religions in Anti-
quity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Studies in the History of Religion:
Supplements to Numen 14; ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 412-24.
[58] The Passover Haggadah (ed. N. N. Glatzer; New York: Schocken, 1953) 36.
[59] This term, a Persian loanword, occurs frequently in Mandaic as an equivalent of Nfl"11?©,
originally 'messenger', but having taken on the connotation of 'liberator', 'deliverer', 'saviour',
and often used of the guide of the spirit leaving earthly life; see Th. Noldeke, Mandaische Gram-
matik (Halle a. S., 1875; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964) 418,
n. 1.
[60] Sanh38b. [61] Dial 75.1. [62] Num 13. 16.
[63] Josh 5. 13-15. This figure is apparently the Angel of the Lord; cf. v. 13 with Num 22. 23,
andv. 15 with Exod 3. 5.
[64] Dial 62.4-5. Cf. 61.1.
[65] Metatron is called JtJpfl ni/T in 3 Enoch 12.5; 48[C].7; [D].l. The Scriptural reference is
Exod 23. 21.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 242 JARL FOSSUM

[66] This identification is found not only in Migr Abr 174, but also in De agr 51, where the Scrip-
tural passage is applied to the Logos in his function of being the 'viceroy' of God leading the
'hallowed flock' of the heavenly bodies whose courses regulate cosmic life.
[67] E.g., Prov 8. 1; Sir 1.6; 24.1; Wis 7.22; Bar 3.20.
[68] For a summary of the Wisdom myth, see R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (translated from
the 1964 edition [with the Supplement of 1966] under the editorship of G. R. Beasley-Murray;
Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 22, with bibliographical references in n. 6. Cf. also U. Wilckens, 'ooQia
KTK, C. Judaism', TDNT 7 (1971, reprinted 1975) 508-9.
[69] V.4b.
[70] Exod 13. 21. Cf. Num 14. 14; Deut 1. 33; 9. 3.
[71] It should also be noted that Cyprian, Test ad Quir 2.5, substantiates his opinion that Jesus is
both 'angel' and 'god' by referring to, inter alia, Exod 13. 21 ('the Lord' leading the Israelites out
of Egypt in a Pillar of Cloud and Fire) as well as Exod 23. 20-21, for the bishop of Carthage may
here be adapting a tradition of his Jewish opponents; see A. d'Ales.ia thiologie de Saint Cyprien
(Bibliotheque de theologie historique; Paris: Beauchesne, 1922) 50-53.
[72] Vita Mos 1.166. In Quis rer div her 201-206 Philo closely associates - and even would seem
to identify - the Cloud and the Logos, the 'archangel'.
For the image of an angel being veiled in a cloud, see also Rev 10. 1. Victorinus of Pettau, the
first exegete of the Latin Church, takes this angel to be the same as the 'Angel of the Great Counsel'
in LXX Isa 9. 5. This is a name of the Messiah, and Victorinus thus identifies the angel in Rev 10. 1
as Christ. This may be a justifiable identification, for the angel is described with colours from the
picture of the 'one like a son of man' in 1. 13-16. If the correct translation of &X\o<; &yye\o<; in
Rev 14. 15 is 'another angel', and not 'another, an angel', the 'one like a son of man' in v. 14 would
by implication be regarded as an angel. (If w. 15-17 are an interpolation, it appears that even the
original document held the 'one like a son of man' to be an angel. In order to avoid this conclusion,
we would have to translate 'another, an angel' in v. 18 and regard the 'angel' in v. 19 as another
interpolation.) The 'one like a son of man' in Dan 7. 13 is probably no one else than the angel
Gabriel, who occupies a prominent position elsewhere in the book; see Fossum, Name 279, n. 61.
[73] Ch. 73. The identification of the Angel being welded with the Pillar as Michael is also found
in the Acts of Andrew and Matthias ch. 30.
[74] It is possible that the 'Angel of the Presence' who is said to have gone 'before the host of
Israel' in Jub 1.29 is Michael, since this angel also is held to have vouchsafed a special revelation to
Moses on Mt. Sinai. For Michael being ascribed with the latter function, see W. Lueken, Michael
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898) 18-19; cf. 105. In his book on the archangel Michael
in Judaism and Christianity, Lueken does not cite Aphraates' Tract on Fasting, where the angel in
Exod 23. 20-21 and Josh 5. 14 is identified as Michael. It is generally accepted that Jewish Chris-
tian - and ultimately Jewish - influence is conspicuous in this author.
[ 75 ] Talbert, 'Myth', does not notice Sir's association of Wisdom with the Pillar/Angel of the Lord.
[76] 10.15,17-19; adapting the translation in APOT, I.
[77] The Bible attributes the destruction of the Egyptian army at the Sea to God; see Exod. 14.
24-15. 10, 19, 21. However, the oldest rabbinic refutations of the heresy characterized by the
phrase 'two powers (in heaven)' suggest that the description of YHWH as a 'man of war' in Exod
15. 3 was fundamental for the heretical derivation of the second power; see A. F. Segal, Two
Powers in Heaven (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 33-47, 52-9. In
Samaritanism the Glory, that is, the Angel of the Lord, is credited with the annihilation of the
Egyptian army; see Memar Marqah III.5 and the discussion by Fossum, Name 227-8.
[78] Cf. w. 17 and 21, 'our Lord Jesus Christ', and v. 25, 'Jesus Christ, our Lord'.
[79] It is true that 'Kyrios' always appears with the article when it is accompanied by the words
'Jesus Christ', whereas the article before 'Kyrios' in v. 5 is probably secondary. However, as pointed
out by A. Tyrrell Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1965), who thinks
that even if 'Jesus' is not the original reading, 'it may well be a correct gloss' (137), the two other
occurrences of 'Kyrios' without the article are in quotations, viz. in vv. 9 and 14. Moreover, as has
been seen above, the Kyrios in v. 14 is apparently the Son.
Accepting the reading 'Kyrios', Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (2 vols.; Leipzig:
Deichert, 1899) 2. 82-3, 89, was able to interpret this as a name of Jesus by taking TA Seiirepov to
refer to a second act of destruction, namely that of Jerusalem, and assuming that the first as well
as the second act of punishment (with their respective preceding acts of redemption) had been

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 KYRIOS JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN JUDE 5-7 243
effected by the same 'Lord', even Jesus. For a refutation of Zahn's laborious exegesis, see F. Maier,
'Zur Erklarung des Judasbriefes (Jud 5)', BZ 2 (1904) 396-7. Some commentators - e.g. Schelkle,
Petrusbriefe 154, n. 2 - think that the reading 'Jesus' may imply that the destruction of Jerusalem
is hinted at, but - even if this might be right - the origination of the reading cannot be explained
by this construal. It is generally agreed that TO Sevrepov means 'the next time', 'afterwards'.
C. Bigg, The Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1901 and reprints), who
chooses the reading 'Kyrios', says: 'By "the Lord" is no doubt meant Christ' (328). He refers to
1 Cor 10. 4, 9, where, however, the Son is not called 'Kyrios'. Tyrrell Hanson, Jesus Christ 137-8,
refers to Heb chs. 3-4 as well as to 1 Cor ch. 10; but, even if we would be justified in taking Heb
3. 3,6 to mean that the Son was 'envisaged as active' in the events of the wilderness period in a
similar way to what is the case in 1 Cor ch. 10, it must be pointed out that the author of Hebrews
does not call the Son 'Kyrios' in this context. Grundmann, Brief 33, also considers it possible that
'Kyrios' in Jude 5 denotes the pre-existent Son.
[80] Metzger and Wikgren, in Metzger et al., Commentary 726. The reading was espoused by
J. J. Griesbach in the second half of the eighteenth century and adopted by K. Lachmann in his
edition of 1831. The first and second edition of the Greek New Testament of the United Bible
Societies also represent this reading.
[81 ] Metzger et al., Commentary 726.
[82] In the previous century, there were some scholars who defended the reading 'Jesus' by
explaining TA Seiirepov as alluding to a second deliverance, namely that through Jesus, and dir-
dJXeoev as referring to the ensuing destruction of Jerusalem. For a refutation of this exegesis, see
Spitta, Brief 320. Cf. also above, n. 79.
[83] D. G. Wohlenberg, Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief (Kommentar zurn
Neuen Testament 15; Leipzig: Deichert, 1915) 291, asserts that 'Kyrios' can be explained as an
interpretation of the reading 'Jesus', which faultily might have been taken to denote Joshua. But in
that case we should expect 'Kyrios Jesus', as is read by both Didymus and Origen; see above, n. 7.
[ 84 ] Several months after this article was submitted, Professor Martin Hengel directed my attention
to a fragmentary papyrus text published by P. Benoit, 'Fragment d'une priere contre les esprits im-
purs?', RB 58 (1951) 549-65. A conscientious rendering and translation of this text, the first part
of which appears to be related to Jude 5-6, would entail a comprehensive grammatical discussion
which cannot be undertaken here. However, a summary of the general contents of the beginning of
the text might not be tedious.
The text begins by urging God to send the angel who led the people through the desert and
later appeared to Joshua. Then the prayer mentions the fate of the fallen souls, alluding to the
passages from 1 Enoch ch. 10 which have been quoted and discussed above, p. 232. As considered
by Benoit, it would not seem entirely impossible that it is even the Angel of Exodus who is regarded
as the one who has thrown the sinners into the abyss. In any case, the prayer collocates the rescue
of the people out of Egypt by the Angel of the Lord and the flinging of the evil ones into the
underworld, an act which was known to have been performed by the chief angel. The papyrus may
thus be taken as further evidence to the effect that Jude 5-7 regards Jesus as the Angel of the
Lord, since Jude concomitantly accredits Jesus with the acts of delivering the people out of Egypt
and imprisoning the evil angels.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500022645 Published online by Cambridge University Press