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— 

Jude 6

We already have our answer to the purpose of this verse. Getting to more specific matters, there are two controversies to resolve. Or is it that there are two mysteries that cannot really be answered except by speculation? One relates to the origin of the fallen angels, or the nature of their fall (or is this only a special case?); and the other relates to their end, or at least their temporary destination or “holding place,” as they await ultimate sentence. 

The Fall of These Angels

There are basically three opinions on what is meant by these angels falling. The first is that it is a manner of expressing that original rebellion in heaven, and the second is like it. Although in the second case, it would be the defeat of the evil powers by Jesus at His first coming. Both are covered in general by the passage in Revelation 12. Of the first, 12:3-4 is considered to be a figure:

“And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth.”

Two Old Testament passages have been offered as giving a glimpse of the devil’s fall. In fact, the name “Lucifer” even comes from the Hebrew for shining one (הילל) in Isaiah 14:12, that speaks of the angel cast down from God's presence. Now whether Isaiah meant to speak directly of the devil’s fall, we cannot say with certainty. Many have speculated about that. Ezekiel 28 has a similar typology. On the surface, both of these begin by speaking of a literal earthly prince. Manton wisely concludes that these are “metaphorical passages,”1 so that one must not press them for specifics on a doctrine. But if anyone is uneasy about the Revelation 12 passage functioning as a prooftext, let it be remembered that John himself specifically equates this dragon to Satan in these words,

“And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (v. 9).

Although it may seem obvious that the reference to any fall “down” must refer to the original eviction of the devil and his host. Yet the defeat at the First Advent may be called a fall as well. So it was after the woman “gave birth to a male child” (v. 5) and “war arose in heaven” (v. 7), that Satan “was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (v. 9). Thus when Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Lk. 10:18), we might ask whether this was His vision from the beginning or announcement of the coming of His kingdom to earth at the present? 

Now the third and last opinion on Jude 6 has gained majority status in the modern era. This view is that it is a veiled reference to the episode of the “sons of God” taking to themselves “the daughters of men,” so that by interbreeding with human beings, a kind of super-human species was propagated, which is the explanation given for the Nephilim. The idea of “not keeping” is even said to be an even more subtle suggestion of unconstrained lust. Not only does Jude mention Enoch by name (v. 14), but the language of this episode in verse 6 parallels that of the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch. Now before we get to that text, we should mention that the phrase “sons of God” is disputed for other reasons. 

That term is clearly used of angels in Job 1 and 2, whereas even “gods” (אֱלהִים) is used of men of renown in 1 Samuel 28 and potentially Psalm 82. So one resolution is to see these as the pre-Flood “giants” (i.e. men of renown), whereas others appeal to those angels, given the 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 texts. We should also bear in mind that the Hebrew word “Nephilim” is the plural for giants, even though technically the root is “to fall.” If we attach significance to that root, it would still beg the question as to what or which fall. Given the paucity of other ancient sources, it is question-begging to assume up front that these were any special race or hybrids of angels and men. Moreover it is reasonable to infer that the other mention of Nephilim after the flood (Num. 13:33) signifies the people’s disbelief and exaggeration of their enemies in the land.

Having covered that ground, let us assume the usage of “sons of God” that corresponds to these angels. Both 1 Enoch and subsequent Jewish tradition would refer to the angels also as “Watchers,” so that this position of authority was abused by their going after the daughters of man. The relevant portion says this,

“And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children’” (I Enoch 6:2).

Calvin, Manton, and Henry take the first view. Kelly, Green, Davids, and Towner take the third view. What significance is there in the fact that the older thinkers all took the view that this speaks to the devil’s original apostasy? The obvious answer is that more focus has been recently given to the apocryphal source of Enoch. We are informed, by Davids’ commentary, “that Judaism abandoned this interpretation of Genesis 6 as referring to angelic beings only after the time of R. Simeon b. Yohai (in the third generation Tannaim, i.e., A.D. 130-60), insisting thereafter that the ‘sons of God’ were human beings rather than angels.”2 Bauckham reports that it was standard Christian interpretation in the first few centuries as well.3 The parallel to Enoch notwithstanding, I would not be too hasty in discounting the traditional emphasis. For one, there is a concept that has often been called “recapitulation” that applies to both prophetic fulfillment and more general typology. Long story short, it shows us how a basic form or essence of a spiritual reality can occur more than once (especially at crucial moments) on the timeline of history. 

The ESV uses the phrase their position of authority though all the main MSS have the same Greek τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν. The KJV renders this “their domain.” The word ἀρχὴν is the accusative singular of ἀρχή meaning either beginning or ruler. Typically this is not translated “head,” since there is another Greek ordinary word for that. Although the idea is standing at a “head” in the sense of hierarchy. Context decides whether this is such a “first point” of ordering of being and cause, or whether it is a political point of supremacy. One can see the rationale of both translations here. Angelic beings are called by such names as “authorities,” “rulers,” or “dominions” elsewhere, for example, “whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” (Col. 1:16).

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

The idea in Jude 6 would be that, though demons would now wage war against the elect angels, yet the position of authority they left was higher in right as well as in power. 

Kept in Eternal Chains 

Perhaps the more difficult part of the passage is the second. Just as with the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, these are not to be taken as literal chains. Our question will have more to do with what the two passages might share in common. If there is a relation between the two, might this change the way we answered the first controversy regarding the passage? In other words, might there be a synergy between God’s original judgment of the demons and then their subsequent, greater loss of power at the First Advent? Ultimately, we cannot give too definitive of an answer. 

What can be gathered from Jude 6 with far greater clarity is that this must be a present judgment and not the eternal state. Why? Note that Jude uses the word: UNTIL—that is, that these chains are ‘until the judgment of the great day.’ So whatever view one takes of the origin of these chains, we must at least rule out that this is the end of their judgment. 

Jude may be employing some amount of irony, or poetic justice, in the repetition of the verb τηρέω, so that “the angels who did not stay [or keep] (τηρήσαντας) … he has kept” (τετήρηκεν). The latter is actually present active indicative (he keeps), so, while the fact of God having kept them to whenever the present of the Christian reader is, it makes for an interesting nuance.  

The degree of mystery aside, Manton speaks of what could be meant by “spiritual chains,” in saying,

“Spiritual chains are things like guilty consciences. Their consciences remind wicked angels that they are condemned to damnation because of their sin. This is a sure chain, for it is a chain of judgment that cannot be shaken off … These chains that bind angels are the chains of God’s eternal decrees. As there is a golden chain, a chain of salvation, that continues from link to link until the purposes of eternal grace end in the possession of eternal glory, so there is an iron chain of reprobation that begins in God’s own voluntary passing them by, continues in man’s voluntary apostasy, and ends in their just damnation. ‘The man he imprisons cannot be released’ (Job 12:14).”4

Our contemporaries may have no patience for such an interpretation, since, being raised on end-times-driven worldviews that are as bound by naturalistic picture-thinking as by sensationalism, we tend to make a mad dash to combine the elements of the verse that leave no room for demonic trouble-making. If Satan is bound, he is bound! we conclude about Revelation 20. No evil is happening because the devil cannot move. Anything less is “non-literal,” which is to say, not real or not “taking it seriously.” Likewise with Jude 6. The words ‘eternal chains under gloomy darkness’ suggest something like a dungeon, a prison. And what prison could be better guarded than a prison consisting in perfect divine justice! Indeed. But all of that still begs the question of the nature of the guard. Was God any less sovereign over Satan when he was unleashed upon Job or when he instigated Judas or the mob in Jerusalem?  

Again, we must read both the origin and end of the devils’ chains in light of how and why Jude is using this example to begin with. We are far too easily fascinated without attending to a train of thought. There is nothing wrong with consulting Enoch (as Jude himself does)—the modern commentators as well as the ancient—but we really ought to ask Jude first. He is the inspired speaker after all. And we consult with Jude by reading verse 6 in its own logical stream. It is an example. It is a type. It is participating in the form of apostasy. The Israelites were not so ancient, neither the angels so high, nor the Sodomites so low—if God cast them all off the ground they stood, He can and may do the same to you, if you follow in their path.

Now I ask, does the angelic equivalent of Gyges’ Ring—except instead of the visible becoming invisible, the spiritual becomes material—all for the sake of enticing earthly women: does this alone really suit Jude’s purposes? Think about it. Even if it may refer most immediately to that occasion, it must of necessity point beyond it, so that the two descents of Genesis and the defeat at the hand of the Second Adam all point to an essential form of falling. This alone can function as a universal sufficient to guide us through the particulars that Jude will use.

___________________

1. Manton, Jude, 113.

2. Peter H. David, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 49.

3. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter: Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 50 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 51.

4. Manton, Jude, 117, 118.