We could separate these questions into six issues to be considered.
(1) The first issue is the text-critical problem of the name found here in Jude 5.
There are four different things found in the manuscripts: Jesus, Lord, God, and God Christ.
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα ὅτι
Iς ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, (Jude 1:5 -- A, B, 33, 81, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2298, 2344, a few Vulgate mss., and Coptic, with other minor variations between them)
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα ὅτι [ὁ]
κς ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, (Jud 1:5 BGT -- א, Ψ, C*, 630, 1505, 2495, Majority Text, a few Syriac mss., with other minor variations between them)
υπομνησε δε υμας βουλομαι ειδοτας απαξ παντας οτι
ο θς λαον εγ γης εγυπτου σωσας το δευτερον τους μη πειστευσαντας απωλεσεν. (Jude 1:5 -- C-corrector, 623, 1243, 1846, a few Syriac mss., a few Vulgate mss., with other minor variations between them)
υπομνησε δε υμας βουλομαι ειδοτας απαξ παντας οτι
θς χρς λαον εγ γης εγυπτου σωσας το δευτερον τους μη πειστευσαντας απωλεσεν. (Jude 1:5 -- p72)
The text-critical question isn't completely simple. The RSV translates:
Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 RSV)
The New American Bible creates a footnote: 'Instead of “[the] Lord” manuscripts vary, having “Jesus,” “God,” or no subject stated.' [Note: This does not seem to be strictly true. The idea of no subject being stated seems to be a scholarly conjecture only. See Metzger on Hort below.]
I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 NAB)
The ESV does indeed translate "Jesus" here:
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 ESV)
And indeed the names "Jesus" and "Joshua" aren't distinguished in Greek as they are in English.
This is how Metzger describes his decision making (
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 657-658):
Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop, bo eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚS being taken for ΙS). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P72 (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses.
The great majority of witnesses read ὁ before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose ὁ within square brackets.
[Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1 Cor 10:4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) “the original text had only ὁ, and that οτιο was read as οτιΙΧ and perhaps as οτιΚΧ” (“Notes on Select Readings,” ad loc.).
The origin of the variations in the position of ἅπαξ is best explained by assuming that it originally stood after εἰδότας (as in P72 A B C2 L 049 33 81 104 181 326 330 436 451 629 945 1877 2127 al); because, however, the word did not seem to suit εἰδότας, and because the following τὸ δεύτερον appeared to call for a word like πρῶτον, ἅπαξ was moved within the ὅτι-clause so as to qualify σώσας. B.M.M. and A.W.]
Overall, the reading "Jesus" does seem to meet the criteria of being the more difficult reading and being able to explain the origin of the other readings.
(2) The second issue is what this part of Jude could be mentioning from the Septuagint (not only is such a referent likely in any case, it is further indicated by the phrase "I wish to remind you"). The one candidate that is frequently (and rightly) offered is this passage from Numbers 14:26-38 and the other references in the Pentateuch to these events.
The LORD also said to Moses and Aaron: How long will this wicked community grumble against me?m I have heard the grumblings of the Israelites against me.
Tell them:* “By my life”—oracle of the LORD—“I will do to you just what I have heard you say. Here in the wildernessn your dead bodies shall fall. Of all your men of twenty years or more, enrolled in your registration, who grumbled against me, not one of you shall enter the land where I solemnly swore to settle you, except Caleb, son of Jephunneh, and Joshua, son of Nun. Your little ones, however, who you said would be taken as spoil, I will bring in, and they shall know the land you rejected. But as for you, your bodies shall fall here in the wilderness, while your children will wander for forty years, suffering for your infidelity, till the last of you lies dead in the wilderness. Corresponding to the number of days you spent reconnoitering the land—forty days—you shall bear your punishment one year for each day: forty years. Thus you will realize what it means to oppose me. I, the LORD, have spoken; and I will surely do this to this entire wicked community that conspired against me: here in the wilderness they shall come to their end and there they will die.” And the men whom Moses had sent to reconnoiter the land and who on returning had set the whole community grumbling against him by spreading discouraging reports about the land—these men who had spread discouraging reports about the land were struck down by the LORD and died. Only Joshua, son of Nun, and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, survived of all the men who had gone to reconnoiter the land.
τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, “destroyed those who did not believe,” refers to the account of Num 14, where, discouraged by the report of the majority of the spies returning from Canaan, the people of Israel “murmured,” showing lack of faith in God’s promises to give them the land and so refusing to go into Canaan. As a result, God decreed that all the Israelites guilty of disbelief, i.e. all aged twenty and over, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, should die in the wilderness. (Num 26:64–65 records the fulfillment.) Jude’s specific reference to disbelief (an act of disbelief indicated by the aorist participle) identifies the occasion he has in mind, for disbelief is mentioned in Num 14:11 and in other references to the same incident (Deut 1:32; 9:23; Ps 106:24; Bib. Ant. 15:6; Heb 3:19; 4:2); it was, of course, disbelief which issued in disobedience (Deut 9:23; Ps 106:25; Heb 3:19; 4:6, 11). Since virtually the whole generation was guilty of disbelief and died in the wilderness, Jude will intend no contrast between the λαός (“people”) whom the Lord saved and the unbelievers whom he destroyed. His point, reinforced also by the participial construction, is that precisely those people whom the Lord saved afterward incurred judgment (so Maier, BZ 2 [1904] 393–94).
This apostasy and judgment of Israel in the wilderness was a well-known example of sin and judgment, used both in the traditional schema which Jude follows in these verses (note especially CD 3:7–9, where it receives special emphasis; Sir 16:10) and elsewhere (Ps 95:8–11; Heb 3:7–4:11). The rabbis debated whether the wilderness generation would have a share in the world to come (m. Sanh. 10:3). Paul in 1 Cor 10:7–11 refers not to this but to other examples of sin and judgment in the wilderness, but his comment that these things “were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come” (10:11 rsv), together with the extended use of the example in Heb 3–4, show how Christian tradition used the experiences of the people of God in the period of the Exodus as instructive for the eschatological people of God in the period of the new Exodus. Jude depends on this typological tradition for his own application to the false teachers.
Probably it was this especially close parallel between Israel and the church which led Jude to make this the first of his three types, out of chronological order. It recalls the judgment of the very people whom God had saved by the great salvation-event of the Exodus, and so was of special relevance to apostate Christians. Jude’s use of it implies that he did consider the false teachers to be apostate Christians.
Bauckham, R. J. (2002). Vol. 50: Word Biblical Commentary : 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (49-50). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Three classic examples of those who incur divine judgment are given: the whole generation of Israel exterminated in the wilderness after the Exodus (Num. 14), the angels who left their heavenly position in order to mate with women (Gen. 6:1-4, as interpreted in the apocryphal account 1 Enoch 6-19), and the Sodomites, whose sin is here condemned not as homosexual rape but as an attempt at sexual relations with angels (Gen. 19:4-11). The point in the last two cases is the outrageous transgression of the moral order of creation. The particular point in the first case is that the Lord’s own people, who have experienced salvation, are not immune from judgment if they repudiate his lordship.
Mays, J. L., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1996, c1988). Harper's Bible commentary (Jud 5). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
The rescuing of the Israelites is now contrasted with the punishment or destruction of some of them who did not believe. This refers to Numbers 14 (see especially verses 26–35, also 1 Cor 10.5–11 and Heb 3.16–4.2), where God punished those who refused to enter Canaan; they refused to enter Canaan because they heard the discouraging reports of a majority of the people sent by Moses to spy out the land. Their refusal is a sign of their lack of faith in God, who promised to give them this land. God’s decree was that all Israelites, from age 20 and older, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, would die in the desert and therefore would not set foot on the Promised Land. The Greek word indicates that these people “died” or “were destroyed.” In some languages it will be helpful to say “but afterward caused those who did not believe to die (or, be destroyed).”
The whole purpose of this example is to show how God deals with his people. Although he rescues them from danger, he does not hesitate to punish them if they fail to trust in him.
Arichea, D. C., & Hatton, H. (1993). A handbook on the letter from Jude and the second letter from Peter. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (22). New York: United Bible Societies.
Looking at each of the three examples of apostasy Jude gives will show what they have in common. His first example is Israel who was led by the Lord out of Egypt but refused to enter the promised land and so was punished. This is the story of the twelve spies, ten of whom were afraid of the inhabitants of the land while two, Caleb and Joshua, called for faith in God to give them victory. Most of the Israelites follow the ten, rebel against the Lord, and are punished for their unfaithfulness (Numbers 13:25–14:38). God destroys the very people he had rescued. It is the people of God, not outsiders, who are punished. No wonder this story is used elsewhere in the New Testament to warn Christians against apostasy (1 Corinthians 10:1–13; Hebrews 3:7–4:13).
Holloway, G. (1996). James & Jude. The College press NIV commentary (Jud 5). Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.
Here are the other two passages referenced from the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 10:1-13
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. 10 And do not complain as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall. 13 No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.
Hebrews 3:7-4:13
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
as on the day of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors put me to the test,
though they had seen my works 10 for forty years.
Therefore I was angry with that generation,
and I said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts,
and they have not known my ways.’
11 As in my anger I swore,
‘They will not enter my rest.’”
12 Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” so that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partners of Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end. 15 As it is said,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
16 Now who were they who heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 But with whom was he angry forty years? Was it not those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, if not to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
“As in my anger I swore,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”
though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day—“today”—saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God[c] would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.
12 Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account.
(3) The third issue is how to understand τὸ δεύτερον in general.
http://archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/c ... ry&id=d004
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... eu%2Fteros
δεύτερος, α, ον (Hom.+) ‘second’
① next to the first in a sequence or series, second. In a numerical sequence: Mt 22:26 of the second of seven brothers; J 4:54 second sign (a similar close in Appian, Bell. Civ. 1, 33 §150 τρίτον τόδε ἔργον ἦν); D 2:1. In a series (cp. Just., A I, 13, 3 χριστὸν … ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες =holding Christ in second position [in the Trinity] 60, 7; Ath. 35, 1 τὸ πρότερον … τὸ δεύτερον of two charges made against Christians): Mt 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 19:18; 1 Cor 15:47; 2 Pt 3:1; Rv 4:7; 6:3; 16:3; 21:19. δευτέρα (sc. ἐπιστολή) in the subscr. of 2 Th and 2 Ti. Of position: the second sentinel’s post Ac 12:10; the second curtain Hb 9:3; cp. vs. 7. Of that which comes later in time (cp. Just., D. 110, 2 δ. παρουσία) as the second item in a class: Hb 8:7; 10:9; Rv 2:11; 11:14; 20:14; 21:8; 2 Cor 1:15; Tit 3:10; ὥρα δ. Hs 9, 11, 7 (cp. Jos., Vi. 220); φυλακὴ δ. second watch in the night (Arrian, Anab. 6, 25, 5; Jos., Bell. 5, 510) Lk 12:38. δευτέρᾳ (sc. ἡμέρᾳ) on the second (day of the month) MPol 21.
② neut. δεύτερον, τὸ δεύτερον used as adv. for the second time (Sappho [POxy 1231 Fgm. 1 col. 1, 11=Campbell p. 64]; Hdt. et al.; Appian to Fronto [I p. 537f Viereck-R.] §6; OGI 82, 7 [III b.c.]; Gen 22:15; Jer 40:1; Jos., Bell. 1, 25, Vi. 389; s. MBoismard, Le chapitre 21 de StJean: RB 54, ’47, 480) δ. εἰσελθεῖν J 3:4; παρὼν τὸ δ. 2 Cor 13:2; δ. εἴρηκαν they said for the second time Rv 19:3. Also ἐκ δευτέρου (Diosc. 5, 41; Galen, CMG VII 159, 15 al.; PTebt 297, 19; PHolm 1, 32; Jon 3:1; Jer 1:13; 1 Macc 9:1; JosAs 14:6; 4 [6] Esdr [POxy 1010]; Jos., Ant. 6, 94; TestAbr A 7 p. 84, 9f [Stone p. 16]; Ath. 32, 3 [Resch, Agrapha 137] on caution with respect to kissing) Mk 14:72; J 9:24; Ac 11:9; Hb 9:28; 2 Ti subscr.; making πάλιν more definite (Heraclit. Sto. 32 p. 48, 8 ἐκ δευτέρου πάλιν; reversed 4 [6] Esdr [POxy 1010]) Mt 26:42; Ac 10:15; also πάλιν δεύτερον (cp. Herodas 5, 47) J 21:16; ἐν τῷ δ. the second time Ac 7:13 (TestJob 36:6). In enumerations secondly (PTebt 56, 9–11 [II b.c.] εὐχαριστῆσαι πρῶτον μὲν τοῖς θεοῖς, δεύτερον δὲ σῶσαι ψυχάς; Sir 23:23; 2 Macc 14:8; Tat. 40, 1; 42, 1) 1 Cor 12:28; D 1:2; Hm 10, 3, 2. τὸ δ. ἀπώλεσεν the second time he destroyed Jd 5 (NRSV renders ‘afterward’, but this is not to be construed as a difft. mng. for Jude’s use of δ.: in Jude’s pregnant statement the point lies in a contrast between two special moments of display of divine power, one in salvation, and the second in destruction).
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (220). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
δεύτερος, 3 deuteros second
1. Occurrences in the NT — 2. As a numeral — 3. Usage in referring back and as a connective — 4. Usage as a qualifier
Lit.: H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia, 1975) 284–85. — O. Hofius, “Das ‘erste’ und das ‘zweite’ Zelt. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Hebr 9, 1–10, ” ZNW 61 (1970) 271–77. — E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (1980) 140–58. — W. G. Kümmel, Theology 155, 157f. — R. Pesch, Markus (HTKNT) II, 236–49 (bibliography). — H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (1977) 179–89. J. L. Sharpe, “The Second Adam in the Apocalypse of Moses,” CBQ 35 (1973) 35–46. — U. Wilckens, “Christus, der ‘letzte Adam’ und der Menschensohn,” FS Vögtle 378–403.
1. With 13 of the 43 passages that have the word, only Revelation shows a preference for δεύτερος. The other occurrences are in the Gospels (13 occurrences), Acts (5), and Epistles (12); cf. Matt 21:30 v.l.
2. Δεύτερος appears primarily as a numeral, e.g., for the designation of a “second person” in a usually well-defined series (Mark 12:21 par.; Matt 21:30 v.l.; Luke 19:18; cf. Rev 4:7; 8:8; 14:8; 16:3); no special meaning is given to the second person. The adverbial phrases ἐκ δευτέρου (Matt 26:42; Mark 14:72; John 9:24; Acts 10:15; 11:9; Heb 9:28), (τὸ) δεύτερον (John 3:4; 21:16; 1 Cor 12:28; 2 Cor 13:2; Jude 5), and ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ (Acts 7:13) are generally used of the second occurrence of an event (of which there are often three).
3. Δεύτερος is used to refer back and as a connective when it calls attention to something that is closely related to another item. The author of 2 Peter thus employs the reference in 3:1 to indicate that this is already “the second letter”; it is to be connected with 1 Peter, which is assumed to be known already. In this way apostolic continuity and the reliability of the message are underscored. In a similar sense Mark 12:31 par. Matt 22:39 designates the command to love one’s neighbor as δευτέρα (ἐντολή), second to the love of God, but at the same time maintains the indissoluble unity of the two (esp. Matt 22:39: the second is “like” the first).
4. Finally, δεύτερος can be used to emphasize the specifically new, which surpasses and excels the “first.”
a) The “second covenant” of Heb 8:7, in comparison with the first, is “new” (v. 13; vv. 8b–12 = Jer 31:31–34) and “better” (8:6f.), founded on Christ as the surety (7:22) and mediator (9:15), the new high priest (4:14–10:18) who has been installed by God. It is the guarantee of the salvation given by God and of the redemption through his blood (9:11–15; cf. the salvation-historical interpretation of πρώτη σκηνή and δευτέρα σκηνή in vv. 1–10).
b) Δεύτερος takes on the connotation of surpassing the first in the reference to Jesus Christ in 1 Cor 15:47; as the “second man,” i.e., as the “last Adam” who is contrasted with the “first man Adam” (v. 45), he stands at the end of history as the one who is eschatologically suited and decisive for salvation as a result of the resurrection. Christ and Adam are two opposite poles. Death, which is the fate brought into the world through Adam, is overcome through the resurrection (vv. 20–22). Thus Christ is the eschatologically decisive form of the “second man” = the “last Adam.”
c) The reference to the “second death” (Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8) is based on the conception of bodily death as the inescapable end of human life. Through reference to the role of God (20:11) and Christ (19:11–16) in judgment, this “second death” is described in relation to natural death as radically different and as the decisive act with regard to the future hope. It is—according to the one who endures the judgment, for whom eternal life with Jesus is in view—the irrevocable ratification of the decision against God, i.e., the eternal damnation. Only “faithfulness unto death” promises preservation from the second death (2:10f.).
Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Wr̲terbuch zum Neuen Testament. (1:291-292). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
67.50 δεύτεροςb, α, ον; ὕστεροςb, α, ον: pertaining to a subsequent event, but not necessarily the second in a series—‘afterward, later.’δεύτεροςb : λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν ‘he saved the people (of Israel) from the land of Egypt, but afterward destroyed those that did not believe’ Jd 5.
ὕστεροςb : ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ θέλω, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν ‘I don’t want to, he answered, but later he changed his mind and went’ Mt 21.29.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (1:634-635). New York: United Bible societies.
1. deuteros (δεύτερος, 1208) denotes “second in order” with or without the idea of time, e.g., Matt. 22:26, 39; 2 Cor. 1:15; Rev. 2:11; in Rev. 14:8, rv only (“a second angel”); it is used in the neuter, deuteron, adverbially, signifying a “second” time, e.g., John 3:4; 21:16; Acts 7:13; Rev. 19:3, rv (kjv, “again”); Jude 5, “afterward” (rv, marg., “the second time”); used with ek (“of”) idiomatically, the preposition signifying “for (the second time),” Mark 14:72; John 9:24 and Acts 11:9, rv (kjv, “again”); Heb. 9:28; in 1 Cor. 12:28, kjv, “secondarily,” rv, “secondly.”
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:555). Nashville: T. Nelson.
While a translation of 'afterward'
might be legitimate, in a general way, there is no question that a translation of 'a second time' is legitimate, in a general way, for the word. But the question of concern is whether anything like 'afterward' or 'later' is completely illegitimate. And that does not seem to be the case. The LSJ lexicon, for example, cites the first Olympian ode of Pindar (1.43):
then it was that the god of the splendid trident seized you, his mind overcome with desire, and carried you away on his team of golden horses to the highest home of widely-honored Zeus, to which at a later time (ἔνθα δευτέρῳ χρόνῳ) Ganymede came also,
(4) The fourth issue is how to understand τὸ δεύτερον in this passage when taken, as it usually is, to modify the clause following.
Suppose, then, we were to take the translation of the ESV and render the phrase in English as "a second time":
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, a second time destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 ESV modified)
afterward—Greek, “secondly”; in the next instance “destroyed them that believed not,” as contrasted with His in the first instance having saved them.
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Jud 5). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
τὸ δεύτερον (“on a second occasion”) is hard to explain with precision. To suggest that a second destruction of Israel in a.d. 70 is in mind (Zahn, Introduction, 253–55, 261–62) makes Jude’s point improbably involved. Some (Spitta; Berger, ZNW 61 [1970] 36) suggest a second occasion of disbelief, corresponding to a first occasion at the Red Sea (Exod 14:10–12; Ps 107:7), but (1) there were many other intervening instances of unbelief (Num 14:22; Ps 78:40–41), and (2) in that case we should expect τὸ δεύτερον to follow τούς. It is more likely that Jude intends to distinguish a first occasion on which God acted to save his people (at the Exodus) and a second occasion on which he acted to judge their disbelief (Chaine, Schelkle, Kelly, Cantinat, Grundmann). In that case the point of τὸ δεύτερον is to emphasize that this is an act of judgment on apostasy; the people whom the Lord had saved were not thereby immune from subsequent judgment. Applied to the antitypes, Jude means that the first occasion on which the Lord acted in relation to Christians, to save them, will be followed by a second occasion, the Parousia, when he will judge apostate Christians.
Bauckham, R. J. (2002). Vol. 50: Word Biblical Commentary : 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (50). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
τὸ δ. ἀπώλεσεν the second time he destroyed Jd 5 (NRSV renders ‘afterward’, but this is not to be construed as a difft. mng. for Jude’s use of δ.: in Jude’s pregnant statement the point lies in a contrast between two special moments of display of divine power, one in salvation, and the second in destruction).
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (220). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
In short, there is little difficulty in translating it as a "second time" or "secondly" and seeing it as still modifying the clause following. The key to understanding the passage, in either case, is to refer it back to the scriptural events that the author is calling to mind.
(5) The fifth issue is whether τὸ δεύτερον can be taken as modifying the clause preceding.
This reference work describes this as the position of Arthur Drews:
Furthermore, by linking Ex. 23:20–23 with Jos. 24:11, Joshua may be equated with the angel in whom is God’s name, since the nations which in the one place are driven out by the angel are the same as those driven out by God through Joshua. In later Jewish tradition this angel is equated with Metatron (→ qrovno~, 164, n. 30), and in the liturgy for the New Year festival there is reference to Joshua as the prince of the presence of God. From this is deduced an ancient equation of Joshua/Jesus with Metatron, and Joshua is thus made the name of a mythical liberator. The same mythical position of Joshua is supposedly reflected at Jd. 5 according to the reading in BA vg Or.: ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς (other readings: [ὁ] κύριος or ὀ θεός) λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον, (this is where Drews puts the comma) τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν.47 In Sib., V, 256–259, according to the traditional text, Joshua, ὃς ἠέλιόν ποτε στῆσεν, is equated with the returning Christ, ὃς παλάμας ἥπλωσεν ἐπὶ ξύλου πολυκάρπου, and Drews asks whether Enoch, Melchisedek, Noah, Joseph and Cain would all be objects of cultic worship and not Joshua.
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (3:290-291). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
This is also the position of George Ory, above:
An older version of the Epistle of Jude (verses 5 and 6) gives the following text: I want to remind you, though you know already, that this Jesus (i.e. “Joshua” instead of “the Lord”) by saving his people out of Egypt a second time (Moses having saved them the first time) destroyed the unbelievers...
Ory's translation here is not necessarily wrong and does have its own internal logic. Moses did indeed lead a people out of Egypt and saved them the first time by bringing them to the wilderness. Joshua led the people a second time, into Canaan, and the unbelievers were destroyed then. As such, however, one would really want to put a full stop after the word unbelievers, since it is very difficult (and contradicts the scripture) to say that Joshua (the man) was the one who "put in chains the angels who did not keep their places for the great day of the judgment."
However, even if one punctuates it the way Ory and Drews do, one does not have to interpret it the way that Ory does, seeing Joshua being placed in contrast to Moses in this verse. Instead one can render it:
"I want to remind you, though you know already, that Jesus, saving his people out of Egypt a second time, destroyed the unbelievers."
In this case Jesus is being interpreted similarly to the 1 Corinthians 10 passage ("Christ" as "the rock"), as Jesus Christ being with the people out of Egypt in the wilderness. The first act of saving this people out of Egypt came when they were led out of Egypt, and the second act of saving them came when they were led into Canaan.
Attaching the phrase τὸ δεύτερον to the clause preceding and then declaring that it refers not just to "saving" his people a second time but, further, to bringing them out from Egypt a second time is to create something that is hard to understand (not that it is required to be read that way by analysis of the text) and then marvel that we don't understand it. In this case, and especially because the text is calling to the reader's mind something that they already know, the fact that such a reading does not cohere with the narrative being referenced (in the Septuagint) does indeed recommend that it is not the meaning of the passage in Jude.
(6) The sixth issue is whether it makes more sense to read verse 6 as starting a new sentence.
There is more than one reason to put a full stop after the word "unbelievers." The Greek doesn't start verse 6 with a verb but with a long noun phrase, and the Greek does not have the connective conjunction that Ory puts there spuriously (and / kai).
ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν, (Jud 1:6 BGT)
And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
This is the verse where some find it difficult to regard "Jesus" as the subject, and it is indeed this difficulty that has led some to favor finding the "Lord" in verse 5 instead. It can be noted that the parallel 2 Peter, which is in a literary relationship with Jude, does not read "Jesus" here but rather "God."
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)
However, 2 Peter has the license to reinterpret whatever Jude had written, with a fresh reference to the scriptures, so it is not a strong indication about the text of Jude (although it would be more striking if 2 Peter had written "Jesus," since that would not have been strictly taken from the scriptures).
Overall, it does seem to be the case that, if we read "Jesus" in verse 5, that we should read verse 6 as also being about this "Jesus." However, that still doesn't mean that it shouldn't be rendered as a new sentence in any case.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
