Table of Contents
- Jude in Greek and English
- Master (δεσπότης)
- Only Yahweh: The Lordship of Jesus
- Despota Kyrie = Lord Yahweh
- Jesus in Heaven: The Reign of Yahweh
- The Granville Sharp Rule
- Jude 1:4 in the King James Version
- If Jude 1:4 is 2 persons, Jesus is still Yahweh.
- Christ in the Manuscript Tradition: Either Way, Jesus Is YHWH
- Jude 1:5 and the Identity of the Lord Who Saved Israel
- “Joshua saved the Israelites…”?
- God’s Wisdom in Allowing Variants
- Objection: The Father Locked Up the Angels in 2 Peter 2:4
- Clement of Alexandria
Jude in Greek and English
In Jude 1:4, the apostle Jude makes a profound statement about the identity of Jesus Christ. The Greek text reads:
τον μόνον δεσπότην και κύριον ημών ιησουν χριστον
“the only Master and Lord of us Jesus Christ”
Here, the phrase τον μόνον δεσπότην και κύριον is particularly significant, as it combines two key titles of authority: despotēs (δεσπότης, Master/Sovereign) and kyrios (κύριος, Lord). Both terms denote supreme authority and, when used together, are reserved in the Old Testament exclusively for God. The structure of the Greek reinforces the exclusivity of this lordship, highlighting that Jesus alone holds this divine authority.
Master (δεσπότης)
The term despotēs (δεσπότης) is translated as “Master” or “Sovereign,” and it’s worth noting that it is used only ten times in the New Testament. It is most commonly used to describe God the Father (Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, Rev 6:10).
In 2 Peter 2:1, (2 Peter 2 and Jude, regardless which came first, share such close verbal and thematic parallels that most scholars see literary dependence), the same term is used when Peter prophesies about false teachers who “deny the Master” (despotes) “who bought them” (agorazo). Here are a few reasons why this Master is Jesus:
- Meaning of the word — Agorazō Appears about 29 times in the New Testament (depending on textual variants), 6x to people as the objects. LIterally means “to buy in the marketplace.” It describes a purchase made with a price, and by extension, in theological use, it means “to redeem” or “to acquire by paying a ransom.”
- Common (non-theological) use — The word appears 24x in the NT for ordinary buying and selling—like purchasing food, oil, or goods (as in Matthew 13:44, Mark 15:46, etc.).
- Spiritual use — In 6x passages (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; 2 Peter2:1; Revelation 5:9; 14:3-4), agorazō is used in a redemptive sense—describing how believers are “bought” or “redeemed” through Christ’s blood. The only clear referent of a person doing the spiritual buying is Jesus in Revelation 5:9 — “You… have bought us to God by Your blood.”
- Implication for 2 Peter 2:1 — In every other case where agorazō carries a redemptive sense, the buyer is explicitly Christ. When it carries a redemptive meaning, it makes best sense to interpret “the Master who bought them” as referring to the Lord Jesus, not God the Father.
- The Father does reedem — In a broader theological sense, one could say the Father “redeems,” because He is the source or initiator of the plan of salvation. However, linguistically the New Testament never applies the word agorazo to the Father, it does to Christ, the one who pays the price with His blood.
- The Father is the architect and initiator of redemption — the one who plans, sends, and accepts the ransom.
- The Son is the agent and price of redemption — the one who enacts it through his death and resurrection. The word agorazō belongs to the Son, because He is the one who literally pays the redemptive price through His death.
- The Spirit is the applier of redemption — the one who seals and actualizes it in believers.
Here are a few other verses where Jesus is the One purchasing (not the word agorazo):
- Titus 2:14 — “Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us.”
- Galatians 4:4–5 — “God sent forth His Son… to redeem those who were under the law.”
- Colossians 2:14 — “[He has] wiped out the handwriting (debt) of requirements that was against us… having nailed it to the cross.”
- Matthew 20:28 — “The Son of Man… to give His life a ransom for many.”
The striking similarity between these two passages is that both Peter and Jude use despotēs in the context of false teachers who reject the authority of the one true Master. While Peter anticipates a future rejection of Jesus’ lordship, Jude warns that such heresy is already present. This highlights that, in Jude’s view, the Lordship of Jesus is an established and present reality. This is more striking when both Epitles begin by confessing that they are “δοῦλος” (slaves/servants) of Jesus Christ:
2 Peter 1:1 — “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Jude 1:1 — “Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ.”
This connection between Jude and Peter points to the significance of recognizing Jesus as the one true despotēs, the Master with supreme authority — a title that, in the Jewish context, would have been reserved for God alone.
Richard C. Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament (pages 96–98), lays out the difference between the Kyrios and Despotes:
A man, according to the later Greek grammarians, was δεσποτης in respect of his slaves (Plato, Legg. vi. 756 e), therefore οικοδεσποτης, but κυριος in regard of his wife and children; who in speaking either to him or of him, would give him this title of honour; “as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (κυριον αυτον καλουσα, 1 Pet. 3:6; cf. 1 Sam. 1:8; cf. Plutarch, De Virt. Mul. s. vv. Μικκα και Μεγιστω). There is a certain truth in this distinction. Undoubtedly there lies in κυριος the sense of an authority owning limitations—moral limitations it may be; it is implied too that the wielder of this authority will not exclude, in wielding it, a consideration of their good over whom it is exercised; while the δεσποτης exercises a more unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no such limitations or restraints. He who addresses another as δεσποτα, puts an emphasis of submission into his speech, which κυριε would not have possessed; therefore it was that the Greeks, not yet grown slavish, refused this title of δεσποτης to any but the gods (Euripides, Hippol. 88: αναξ, θεους γαρ δεσποτας καλειν χρεων); while our own use of ‘despot,’ ‘despotic,’ ‘despotism,’ as set over against that of ‘lord,’ ‘lordship,’ and the like, attests that these words are coloured for us, as they were for those from whom we have derived them.
Still, there were influences at work tending to break down this distinction. Slavery, or the appropriating, without payment, of other men’s toil, however legalized, is so abhorrent to men’s innate sense of right, that they seek to mitigate, in word at least, if not in fact, its atrocity; and thus, as no southern Planter in America willingly spoke of his ‘slaves,’ but preferred some other term, so in antiquity, wherever any gentler or more humane view of slavery obtained, the antithesis of δεσποτης and δουλος would continually give place to that of κυριος and δουλος. The harsher antithesis might still survive, but the milder would prevail side by side with it. We need not look further than to the writings of St. Paul, to see how little, in popular speech, the distinction of the grammarians was observed. Masters are now κυριοι (Ephes. 6:9; Col. 4:1), and now δεσποται (1 Tim. 6:1, 2; Tit. 2:9; cf. 1 Pet. 2:18), with him; and compare Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 6.
But, while all experience shows how little sinful man can be trusted with unrestricted power over his fellow, how certainly he will abuse it—a moral fact attested in our use of ‘despot’ as equivalent with ‘tyrant,’ as well as in the history of the word ‘tyrant’ itself—it can only be a blessedness for man to regard God as the absolute Lord, Ruler, and Disposer of his life; since with Him power is never disconnected from wisdom and from love: and, as we saw that the Greeks, not without a certain sense of this, were well pleased to style the gods δεσποται, however they might refuse this title to any other; so, within the limits of Revelation, δεσποτης, no less than κυριος, is applied to the true God. Thus in the Septuagint, at Josh. 5:14; Prov. 29:25; Jer. 4:10; in the Apocrypha, at 2 Macc. 5:17, and elsewhere; while in the N. T. on these occasions: Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4. In the last two it is to Christ, but to Christ as God, that the title is ascribed. Erasmus, indeed, out of that latent Arianism, of which, perhaps, he was scarcely conscious to himself, denies that, at Jude 4, δεσποτης is to be referred to Christ; attributing only κυριος to Him, and δεσποτης to the Father. The fact that in the Greek text, as he read it, Θεον followed and was joined to δεσποτην, no doubt really lay at the root of his reluctance to ascribe the title of δεσποτης to Christ. It was for him not a philological, but a theological difficulty, however he may have sought to persuade himself otherwise.
This δεσποτης did no doubt express on the lips of the faithful who used it, their sense of God’s absolute disposal of his creatures, of his autocratic power, who “doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth” (Dan. 4:35), more strongly than κυριος would have done. So much is plain from some words of Philo (Quis Rer. Div. Hoer. 35), who finds evidence of Abraham’s ευλαβεια, of his tempering, on one signal occasion, boldness with reverence and godly fear, in the fact that, addressing God, he forsakes the more usual κυριε, and substitutes δεσποτα in its room; for δεσποτης, as Philo proceeds to say, is not κυριος only, but φοβερος κυριος, and implies, on his part who uses it, a more entire prostration of self before the might and majesty of God than κυριος would have done.
Richard C. Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament, pp.96–98
Only Yahweh: The Lordship of Jesus
The use of the term kyrios in Jude 1:4 is critical because it connects Jesus to the Yahweh of the Old Testament. The phrase Kyrios monos (κύριος μόνος) in the Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew YHWH labadeka (You alone are the LORD) from Nehemiah 9:6. For a Greek-speaking Jew, the phrase Kyrios monos would be understood as an affirmation that God alone is the Sovereign Lord.
In Psalm 123:1-2 LXX, we read:
“Unto You I lift up my eyes, O You who dwell in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their masters (kyrios)… So our eyes look to the LORD our God (Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν ημων).”
This text reflects the complete submission of the servant to the kyrios (Master), which is understood in a Jewish context to refer to God. However, Jude uses this same term Kyrios to refer to Jesus Christ — raising a crucial theological question. How can Jude, a devout Jew, call Jesus “the only Lord” who reigns in heaven? This presents a challenge to any interpretation that denies the divinity of Christ, as it would imply that Jude is attributing to Jesus the title reserved for Yahweh alone.
Furthermore, Jude’s claim that Jesus is the only Lord in heaven contrasts sharply with the Jewish understanding that Yahweh alone reigns from His heavenly throne (e.g., Psalm 11:4, Psalm 103:19-21). Since no other being shares that throne, the implication is clear: Jesus must be Yahweh Himself. Thus, Jude’s words underscore the divine nature of Jesus, asserting that He shares in the unique Lordship of Yahweh in heaven.
Despota Kyrie = Lord Yahweh
In Jude 1:4, the use of despotēs and kyrios to describe Jesus also connects to the Old Testament understanding of God as the ultimate Master and Sovereign. The phrase Despota Kyrie (Δέσποτα Κύριε) is used in the Septuagint to refer to God, especially in Genesis 15:2, 8, Isaiah 1:24, and Jeremiah 1:6. In these texts, it is impossible to apply the titles of Despota and Kyrios to any created being, as they are directly attributed to Yahweh Himself.
For instance, in Genesis 15:2, 8, Abram calls God Despota Kyrie, translating the Hebrew phrase Adonai Yahweh (“Lord Yahweh”). This expression is used in the LXX to convey God’s absolute authority, and there is no instance in the LXX where such titles are given to anyone other than God. This makes it all the more striking that Jude applies these very titles to Jesus.
In Isaiah 1:24, we read:
“Therefore the Lord (Kyrios), Yahweh of hosts (ho Despotes sabaoth), The Mighty One of Israel, declares…”
This pairing of Kyrios and Despotēs highlights God’s supreme sovereignty. In Jude 1:4, this same terminology is applied to Jesus, suggesting that Jesus shares the same divine rule as Yahweh, who reigns over all creation.
Further, Jonah 4:3 uses the phrase Despota Kyrie, again addressing Yahweh, demonstrating that the title of Lord (Kyrios) and Master (Despotēs) is reserved for God alone. Since Jude applies this language to Jesus, it is an unmistakable affirmation of Christ’s divine identity.
Jesus in Heaven: The Reign of Yahweh
Finally, we must emphasize that Jude’s reference to Jesus as the only Lord in heaven is of critical importance. The Old Testament makes it abundantly clear that only Yahweh reigns from heaven. As Psalm 2:4 and Psalm 11:4 demonstrate, Yahweh is seated on His throne in heaven, ruling over all creation. No creature shares this position of supreme authority in heaven. The heavenly hosts — the angels — are merely servants of God, acting as ministering spirits (Psalm 104:4, Isaiah 6:1-5, Daniel 7:9-10).
Yet in Revelation 17:14, Jesus is depicted as the “Lord of Lords,” reigning from heaven. This is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament if Jesus is not Yahweh. The very fact that Jude affirms Jesus as the “only Master and Lord” in heaven is a Christological declaration — Jesus is no mere earthly ruler, but He shares the throne of Yahweh in heaven.
Conclusion
In sum, Jude 1:4 represents a bold and unambiguous affirmation of the divinity of Jesus. Through the terms despotēs and kyrios, Jude identifies Jesus as the Sovereign Lord in the same way that the Old Testament reserves these titles for Yahweh alone. The connection between Jesus and the God of Israel is clear: Jesus is the one true Lord, reigning in heaven as Yahweh does. For Jude to call Jesus “the only Lord” while emphasizing that He is in heaven is to affirm His divine identity, linking Him directly to the eternal reign of Yahweh.
Granville Sharp Rule
The Literal Greek in verse 4 says, “the only Master and Lord of us Jesus Christ”. The construction ”our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” in v. 4 follows Granville Sharp’s rule. I have written on this somewhat extensively in my article The Granville Sharp Rule.
Here is the NET footnotes on Jude 1:4:
The terms “Master and Lord” both refer to the same person. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns [Ezeiks NOTE – can also include adjectives and participles] are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper nouns [Ezeiks NOTE – Proper nouns name specific people, things, and places. They are always capitalized. Common nouns are more general—they name generic types of people, things, and places. They are normally only capitalized at the start of a sentence. E.g. “friend”, “footballer”]), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the (article) friend (noun) and (kai) brother (noun),” “the (article) God (noun) and (kai) Father (noun),” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. For more discussion see ExSyn 270-78. See also Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1″
Later scholars, with Daniel Wallace being the most recent, did thorough examination to see whether he was right, and they concluded he was spot on. There isn’t a place in the entire New Testament where his rule was not found to be true.
Here is what Sharp says regarding Jude 1:4
EXAMPLE IX.
JUDE 4.
— πλην ἀρνοῦνται τὸν μόνον δεσπότην θεὸν καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν ἀπόλλυνται.
This, in the common English version, is imperfectly rendered — “and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Several years ago, I made a transcript of this text from the Alexandrian manuscript, copying letter by letter, in size and shape, as accurately as the eye could discern. In this transcript, the word θεὸν (“God”) is omitted, as in the manuscript…
Although the word θεὸν has been omitted in the Alexandrian manuscript (perhaps for the same reason some people might wish to prove the insertion of the period after ἀπόλλυνται), thankfully, neither of these alterations affects or injures the clear testimony of the apostle Jude to Christ’s almighty power and divinity. For “the only potentate and Lord of us, Jesus Christ” is equivalent to a full declaration of Christ’s divinity, as well as His almighty power.
With regard to the insertion of the supposed period, one must see, upon due consideration of the text, that ἀπόλλυνται and θεὸν cannot, in accordance with the necessary grammatical sense of Greek and the usual modes of expression in that language, be separated either by points or construction in such a way that they would refer to two different persons. This is because the article is not repeated after the conjunction καὶ before Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. So, Christ alone is unquestionably the “only potentate” or sovereign Lord who was denied by the licentious people against whom the apostle Jude testified — those who had denied the Lord who had redeemed them.
Dr. Hammond’s rendering of this text may, therefore, be conscientiously maintained: “our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.” He says, “making those three the several attributes of Jesus Christ.” But as the Doctor has noted later, in the margin of the text and repeated in his Annotations (p. 850), this interpretation follows the punctuation traditionally retained in our copies, where there is no comma after θεὸν, etc. However, I must protest against this reasoning for the reasons already given and insist that the grammatical construction of the Greek text itself provides the clearest and best warrant for this literal rendering.
Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the New Testament, pp.54-58
Sharp realises that it is undeniable that the text of Jude 1:4 refers to 1 person, namely Christ, though he denies Dr Hammonds basis for which to translate the text as such (punctuation in the Greek copies) rather than the actual Grammar.
Interestingly, the majority of the Greek mss, the Textus Receptus, of Jude 1:4 actually contain the reading of καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν, καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι – it adds the word God as part of the Granville Sharp rule. It literally says, “and the one and only sovereign God and Lord of us Jesus Christ.” This would then apply the 3 nouns to Christ as the WEB (cf. YLT – Young’s Literal Translation; HNV – Hebrew Names Version) translation, which only translates from the majority text, puts it, “our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Jude 1:4 in the KJV
Some skeptics point to the King James Version (KJV) of Jude 1:4, which reads:
“…the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (KJV)
At first glance, this translation seems to suggest two separate persons: (1) “the only Lord God,” and (2) “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Some would argue that this implies a distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ, suggesting that Jude is not identifying Jesus as Yahweh.
However, as shown in earlier discussions, this rendering actually supports the argument for the deity of Christ. The key to understanding this lies in how Elizabethan English—the language of the KJV—worked. In this period, the use of the word “Lord” (in its various forms) could refer to both the Father and the Son without necessarily implying a distinction of persons in the modern sense. The construction “the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” is a perfect example of how the language of the time would refer to two aspects of the same Lordship rather than two distinct persons. This construction would not have been seen by 17th-century English speakers as implying a division between God the Father and Christ, but rather as affirming two titles of the same Sovereign Lord.
To demonstrate this, we can look at similar KJV passages that use a similar structure to refer to the same Lord:
Galatians 1:4 (KJV):
“Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.”
Here, “God” and “our Father” refer to the same person. The structure mirrors that of Jude 1:4, where two titles are applied to one Lord, reinforcing unity, not division.Philippians 4:20 (KJV):
“Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Again, this refers to one person, God and our Father, despite the parallel construction. No distinction is implied.1 Thessalonians 1:3 (KJV):
“Remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father.”
The phrasing is similar to Jude 1:4, but it does not suggest two distinct persons—it simply acknowledges the Father and the Son together under the single Lordship of Christ.1 Thessalonians 3:11 (KJV):
“Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.”
Here, the same grammatical structure is used. However, it does not divide God and Father into two separate persons.Revelation 1:6 (KJV):
“And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
This passage, like those above, uses parallel phrasing to refer to God the Father without any implication that He is separate beings.
The KJV’s reading of Jude 1:4, when understood within the context of 17th-century English usage, does not undermine the deity of Christ but rather reinforces the idea that Christ is Lord in the same sense that God is Lord. The inclusion of “our Lord Jesus Christ” alongside “the only Lord God” points to two expressions of the same divine sovereignty.
If Jude 1:4 is 2 persons, Jesus is still Yahweh.
In Jude 1:4, some would suggest that the translation “the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (KJV) refers to two distinct persons:
- “The only Lord God” refers to God the Father, and
- “Our Lord Jesus Christ” refers to Jesus, the Son.
If this were the case, then it would seem that Jude is presenting two persons—the Father as the only despotēs (Master/Sovereign), and Jesus as Kyrios (Lord). This interpretation implies that the Father is the Sovereign Master and Jesus is the Lord.
However, even if we were to temporarily accept this division of persons, verse 5 of Jude provides a clear theological rebuttal—showing that Jesus Christ is still identified with Yahweh in the Old Testament, particularly in His role in saving Israel from Egypt.
Jude 1:5 reads:
“But I will remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord (Kyrios) having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 1:5, NKJV)
This verse presents the Lord (Kyrios) as the one who saved Israel out of Egypt, referring directly to the Exodus event, which in the Old Testament is attributed specifically to Yahweh.
- If we follow the previous argument that verse 4 divides the titles (Father as “despotēs” and Jesus as “Kyrios”), the result is a theological challenge: If Jesus is identified as Kyrios (Lord), and Kyrios is the one who saved Israel from Egypt, then Jesus must be identified as Yahweh—the same Yahweh who performed the Exodus.
Even if we accept the argument that Jude 1:4 appears to distinguish the Father and Son (as despotēs and Kyrios), verse 5 forces us to confront the fact that the title “Kyrios” (Lord) is ultimately and unequivocally applied to Jesus, identifying Him as the same Kyrios (Yahweh) who saved Israel from Egypt.
Exodus 14:30 states: “Thus the LORD (YHWH) saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians…”
Psalm 106:8 says: “Nevertheless He saved them for His name’s sake, that He might make His mighty power known.”
The only “Lord” (kyrios) who saved Israel from Egypt was Yahweh, Israel’s covenantal God.
Christ in the Manuscript Tradition: Either Way, Jesus Is YHWH
Whether one relies on the earlier manuscripts (Alexandrian tradition) or the Majority Text (Byzantine tradition), Jude 1:4 presents a high Christology that unmistakably identifies Jesus as YHWH.
Many modern critical editions of the New Testament, such as the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28), reflect the earlier manuscript tradition, which reads:
“…τον μόνον δεσπότην και κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν…”
“…the only Master and Lord of us, Jesus Christ.”
In this reading, Jesus alone is called both δεσπότης (despotēs – Master/Sovereign) and κύριος (Kyrios – Lord). This directly identifies Him as the sole divine Sovereign—the only one to whom believers in heaven and earth owe absolute allegiance.
The Majority Text, followed by some translations like the KJV, reads with an expanded form:
“…τον μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν και κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν…”
“…the only Master God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
While some try to use this to argue for two persons (i.e., God the Father and Jesus), this actually bolsters the argument for Christ’s divinity, because the Greek grammar allows the phrase to be understood as one subject with multiple titles applied to Jesus:
“The only Master, God, and Lord—Jesus Christ.”
Thus, either manuscript tradition affirms that Jesus Christ is the one and only divine Sovereign—a title and position exclusively held by YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures.
P72 – 2x use of “our”
A final note I’d like to mention is that the oldest manuscript of Jude, p72, reads this way: “και τον μονον ημων δεσποτην και κυριον ιηεσουν χριστον ημων” (our Master and our Lord Jesus Christ) more clearly referencing 2 persons, God the Father and Christ. While this can still prove that Jesus is YHWH, this rendering stands alone and is the only manuscript that reads as such, hence why no scholar takes this rendering seriously.
Jude 1:5
NET footnote on Jude 1:5
The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel (the NA27 has “the Lord” instead of “Jesus”). However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 88 322 424c 665 915 1241 (1735: “the Lord Jesus”) 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg co eth Or1739mg Cyr Hier Bede), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though P72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate. The NA28 text now also reads Ιησοῦς. For defense of this reading, see Philipp Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt: A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5, ” NovT 50 (2008): 143-58.sn The construction our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ in v. 4 follows Granville Sharp’s rule (see note on Lord). The construction strongly implies the deity of Christ. This is followed by a statement that Jesus was involved in the salvation (and later judgment) of the Hebrews. He is thus to be identified with the Lord God, Yahweh. Verse 5, then, simply fleshes out what is implicit in v. 4.
The earliest reading is actually from the 3rd-4th century in P72, which contains θεος χριστος but written as nomina sacra (sacred names) θς χρς. Although this rendering stands alone and most likely wasn’t the original rendering, its still an intrest insight.
“Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses.”
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament pp.724
Other early, important readings include:
- κυριος (א, aka Sinaiticus, 4th cent.)
- ο θεος (C, aka Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 5th cent.)
- Ιησους (A and B, aka Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, 5th and 4th cent.
Despite the strong manuscript support for the reading Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) in Jude 1:5, the majority of the Nestle-Aland/UBS textual committee ultimately preferred “Lord” (κύριος). This was not due to textual weakness, but rather theological hesitation. From a strictly text-critical standpoint, the reading “Jesus” is to be preferred: it is the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) and is supported by the earliest and most diverse manuscript witnesses. Theologically unbiased methodology would favor it.
However, the committee found the idea “too difficult”—even impossible—believing it highly unlikely that Jude would refer to Jesus as active in an Old Testament narrative, particularly in the Exodus event. In other words, the rejection of the reading “Jesus” was not due to poor attestation, but because of an interpretive bias against the idea that Jude could have identified Jesus as the one who saved Israel out of Egypt—a role traditionally ascribed to Yahweh.
“Joshua saved the Israelites…”?
One of the key controversies centers on the manuscript variation in this verse. While some manuscripts say “the Lord,” others—especially early ones—say “Jesus,” leading some interpreters to argue that the verse refers to Joshua, since the Hebrew name Yehoshua (Joshua) and the Greek Iēsous (Jesus) are linguistically the same. However, this interpretation does not hold up under scrutiny, and some translators have provided strong refutations for this reading.
Here is what David Bentley Hart says regrading the rendering that “Joshua delivered the Israelites out of Egypt.”:
C… (Iesous): that is, “Jesus,” which is the Greek rendering of Joshua (Yeshua). Many texts, especially of the Byzantine type, have “Lord” here, and a few have “Christ God,” but the best textual evidence favors “Jesus.” Most scholars who accept this nevertheless find the verse problematic, recognizing that–even if the author might have seen Jesus as the preexistent divine Son, and seen the acts of God in Hebrew scripture as being executed through the Son–talk of Jesus acting in the events of the book of Exodus is without much precedent or analogue in early Christian literature. Alternatively, perhaps the name should be rendered “Joshua.” I have hesitated to do so only because this passage seems to be the first in a series of descriptions of episodes of divine punishment of sinners (see vv. 6-7), rather than a simple warning that the one who saves the righteous is also the one who will punish the iniquitous. And in Exodus Joshua is not explicitly involved in the liberation of Israel from Egypt–though he soon appears as Moses’ lieutenant and chief warrior. And the mention of the destruction of the faithless might refer to Joshua’s presumed participation in the slaughter of the Israelite idolaters after the fashioning of the golden calf (Exodus 32:17-35), or perhaps simply to his campaign against the Amalekites in Rephidim (Exodus 17:8-16), or even to his conquest of Canaan.
(David Bentley Hart, The New Testament: A Translation, pp. 492-493)
He offers a compelling rebuttal to the Joshua interpretation by pointing out a fundamental narrative inconsistency: Joshua did not lead the Israelites out of Egypt. That role belonged unequivocally to Moses. Attributing the Exodus to Joshua not only ignores the historical flow of the biblical narrative but also misrepresents the theological emphasis of Jude’s warning. Moreover, the reference in Jude 1:5 is not limited to the Exodus itself. It also involves the divine punishment of those who failed to believe during the wilderness wanderings. Here again, the text emphasizes the agency of divine judgment, not merely human leadership. While Joshua certainly played a role in Israel’s history—especially in leading the conquest of Canaan—he was not the primary figure associated with judging Israel in the desert.
God’s Wisdom in Allowing Variants
Remarkably, both readings—whether “Jesus” or “Lord”—ultimately testify to the same truth: the deity of Christ.
- If the original read “Lord”, it is entirely plausible that a scribe, aiming for clarity and theological precision, replaced “Lord” with “Jesus” to explicitly identify the Lord of verse 5 with the Lord Jesus Christ mentioned in verse 4. Contextually, Jesus is the only “Master and Lord” in view, so the substitution makes sense as a clarification, not an alteration of theology.
- Conversely, if the original read “Jesus”, a later scribe may have found this wording theologically problematic, thinking it unlikely that Jude would describe the pre-incarnate Christ—who was not yet known by the name “Jesus”—as acting in the Exodus. The scribe may have thus substituted the more general “Lord” to soften the perceived tension.
In either case, both readings point unmistakably to Christ. One reading makes the identification explicit; the other implies it through contextual continuity with verse 4. This variant, far from weakening the doctrine, highlights the providential depth of Scripture: whether read as “Jesus” or “Lord,” the text presents Jesus Christ as the acting Yahweh of Israel’s redemption story.
Objection: The Father Locked Up the Angels in 2 Peter 2:4
Some say the “Lord” in Jude 1:5, who also locks up the angels in verse 6, must be the Father because in the parallel text, 2 Peter 2:4, He locked up the angels. This, the argument goes, rules out Jesus as the “Lord” in verse 5.
Answer: Same Event and Verb ≠ Same Agent
This objection fails because it makes a basic interpretive error: it assumes that shared actions across different texts must be performed by the same person. But Scripture repeatedly shows that the same event and the same action can be attributed to different agents in different contexts—even within the same theological narrative.
In biblical theology, multiple agents can be involved in divine actions, either concurrently, representatively, or by way of divine permission.
Let’s look at clear examples that prove this principle:
- 2 Samuel 24:1 – “The anger of the Lord was kindled… and He incited David to number Israel.”
1 Chronicles 21:1 – “Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.” Same event, same verb—two different agents: one passage attributes the action to Yahweh, the other to Satan. Both are true: God sovereignly allowed Satan’s agency. - Exodus 9:12 – “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.”
1 Samuel 6:6 – “Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did?” God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart, but so are Pharaoh and his people themselves. Human responsibility and divine sovereignty coexist. - Job 1:12 – “The Lord said to Satan, ‘Behold, all that he has is in your hand.’”
Job 1:21 – “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away.” Though Satan was the immediate agent, Job still attributes the action to the Lord, acknowledging God’s sovereign allowance. - Galatians 1:1 – “God the Father… raised [Jesus] from the dead.”
John 2:19 – “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up.” (Jesus speaking)
Romans 8:11 – “The Spirit… will also give life to your mortal bodies.” The resurrection of Jesus is attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—all involved in the same act, without contradiction. - Deuteronomy 8:2 – “The Lord your God led you these forty years…”
Acts 7:35–36 – “This Moses… God sent… This man led them out.” God led Israel through the wilderness, yet the agent of that action was Moses, whom God used as His representative. - John 14:26 – “The Father will send the Holy Spirit.”
John 15:26 – “I (Jesus) will send the Spirit to you from the Father.” The sending of the Spirit is attributed both to the Father and the Son—showing the unity of will and action between divine persons.
Conclusion: Jude 1:5 Still Points to Jesus as Yahweh
In light of these examples, the objection that the Kyrios in Jude 1:5 must be the Father simply because He also locks up the angels in verse 6 is unfounded. Yes, the same event is described in 2 Peter and Jude. And yes, the same verb is used (e.g., “kept,” “cast,” etc.) but that does not prove that the same divine person must be in view.
In biblical theology, actions can be shared, distributed, or mediated between persons of the Godhead without conflict. In Jude 1:5–6, the context continues to focus on Jesus Christ, who in verse 4 is explicitly called “the only Master and Lord”, and in verse 5 is the Kyrios who saved Israel—a work attributed to Yahweh alone in the Old Testament.
Therefore, even if the locking up of angels is an act of divine judgment shared by the Father in 2 Peter, it poses no challenge to Jesus being identified in Jude as the divine Lord who both saved Israel and executed judgment, because He is Yahweh.
Finally lets end it with the brilliant Jerome, his letter to Marcella in the name of Paula and Eustochium, written 386AD:
The apostle Jude, the brother of James, writes thus in his catholic epistle: I will, therefore, put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this how that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. Jude 5
Clement of Alexandria
Anti-Trinitarians also appeal to the 2nd century Apostolic Father, Clement of Alexandria, who quotes Jude 5 twice.
Paedagogus, The Instructor, book 3, ch.8 – “…“
For I would have you know,says Jude,that God, having once saved His people from the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not;”
Also in Fragments of Clement of Alexandria – “For the Lord God,” he says,[43] “who once delivered a people out of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not;”
However, this is the same man who says:
“The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1)
“Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (ibid., 10:110:1)
Clearly for him, Christ is the pre-existent Word who is God.
Nonetheless, this is what Clement says in context in ch.8:
…The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering. “For I would have you know,” says Jude, “that God, having once saved His people from the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not…”
Hence, for Clement, the “God” who destroyed Sodom was none other than the omniscient Word, Jesus.
As for the Fragments, the context says:
III.—Comments on the Epistle of Jude.Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, whilst knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he?[40] “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,”—of Him as Lord; but “the brother of James.” For this is true; he was His brother, (the son)[41] of Joseph. “For[42] certain men have entered unawares, ungodly men, who had been of old ordained and predestined to the judgment of our God;” not that they might become impious, but that, being now impious, they were ordained to judgment. “For the Lord God,” he says,[43] “who once delivered a people out of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not;” that is, that He might train them through punishment. For they were indeed punished, and they perished on account of those that are saved, until they turn to the Lord. “But the angels,” he says,[44] “that kept not their own pre-eminence,” that, namely, which they received through advancement, “but left their own habitation,” meaning, that is, the heaven and the stars, became, and are called apostates. “He hath reserved these to the judgment of the great day, in chains, under darkness.” He means the place near the earth,[45] that is, the dark air. Now he called “chains” the loss of the honour in which they had stood, and the lust of feeble things; since, bound by their own lust, they cannot be converted. “As Sodom and Gomorrha,” he says.[46] … By which the Lord signifies that pardon had been granted;[47] and that on being disciplined they had repented. “Similarly[48] to the same,” he says,[49] “also those dreamers,”—that is, who dream in their imagination lusts and wicked desires, regarding as good not that which is truly good, and superior to all good,—“defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of majesty,” that is, the only Lord,[50] who is truly our Lord, Jesus Christ, and alone worthy of praise. They “speak evil of majesty,” that is, of the angels.
Hence the Lord God is still none other than the only Lord Jesus Christ.