We are informed at these two passages that there are angels “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness” and that God “cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” But, what is the nature of the binding power of the “chains”? Too often, it seems, the authors of sundry Biblical commentaries envision some kind of dungeon-like cave deep below the surface of the earth, a holding chamber for these dreadful creatures until the day of judgment.

To prepare us for a word study on these two passages, I will quote from the E-Sword program which matches all of the Strong’s numbers to the text:

2 Pet. 2:4: “For¹⁰⁶³ if¹⁴⁸⁷ God²³¹⁶ spared⁵³³⁹ not³⁷⁵⁶ the angels³² that sinned²⁶⁴, but²³⁵ cast them down to hell⁵⁰²⁰, and delivered³⁸⁶⁰ them into chains⁴⁵⁷⁷ of darkness²²¹⁷, to be reserved⁵⁰⁸³ unto¹⁵¹⁹ judgment²⁹²⁰ ...”

Jude 1:6: “And⁵⁰³⁷ the angels³² which kept⁵⁰⁸³ not³³⁶¹ their¹⁴³⁸ first estate⁷⁴⁶, but²³⁵ left⁶²⁰ their own²³⁹⁸ habitation³⁶¹³, he hath reserved⁵⁰⁸³ in everlasting¹²⁶ chains¹¹⁹⁹ under⁵²⁵⁹ darkness²²¹⁷ unto¹⁵¹⁹ the judgment²⁹²⁰ of the great³¹⁷³ day⁰²²⁵...”

If the reader will take notice here, the Strong’s number for “darkness” is 2217, and the numbers for “chains” are 4577 and 1199. However, the Strong’s Greek Dictionary is so abbreviated on these words, it’s about as useless as a tit on a boar, and in this instance I will not waste my time in citing it! On the other hand, The Complete New Testament Word Study by Spiros Zodhiates does much better, but one must be careful, as he will sneak some nominal churchianity dogma into his definitions. To his credit, though, in addition to his Greek definitions, for which he is usually quite honest, he also includes synonyms and antonyms which are very helpful.

Zodhiates on #2217: “ zóphos; genitive zóphou, masculine noun. Darkness, foggy weather, smoke (Heb. 12:18 [Textus Receptus], skótos [4655], darkness). Elsewhere spoken of the darkness of Tartarus or Gehenna (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 1:6); of the darkness or thick darkness associated with the region of those who are lost (2 Pet. 2:4, 17; Jude 1:6, 13).

“Synonyms: gnóphos (1105), blackness, gloom, associated with a tempest; achlús (887), a mist, especially as a dimness of the eyes; homíchle, occurs only in certain MSS in 2 Pet. 2:17 where the Textus Receptus has nephélai (3507), cloud.

“Antonyms: phos (5457), light; phéggos (5338), brightness, light, such as the light of the moon which reflects the light of the sun and not possessing its own source of light; órthros (3722), dawn; apaúgasma (541), effulgence, brightness.”

Zodhiates on #4577: “ seirá; genitive seirás, feminine noun from eíro (not found in NT), to fasten. A cord, band, chain. In 2 Pet. 2:4, the chains mentioned are not to be understood as literal material shackles. The expression ‘of darkness’ (zóphou, genitive of zóphos [2217], darkness) indicates that darkness itself somehow serves to restrain these fallen spirits. If taken as a parallel passage, Jude 1:6 states that these creatures have been bound by ‘eternal’ (aïdios [126]) chains and are being kept (tetereken, perfect active indicative of teréo [5083], to keep) under (hupó [5259]) darkness. The phrase ‘under darkness’ suggests that darkness exercises some kind of dominion over these immured angels, it is something under the control of which the angels remain imprisoned.

“Synonyms: hálusis (254), chain or bond for binding the body or any part of it; desmós (1199), usually in the plural neuter desmá, bonds, chains.”

Zodhiates on #1199: “ desmós; genitive desmoú, masculine noun from déo (1210), to bind. Band, bond, ligament.

“(I) In the singular, spoken of a ligament or whatever matter may cause some member of the body such as the tongue to be impeded (Mark 7:35); or the limbs (Luke 13:16, see also Luke 13:11; Sept.: Judg. 15:13; Dan. 4:12).

“(II) In the plural oi desmoí, and Attic ta desmá (neuter plural), bonds, imprisonment, for example:

“(A) Hoi desmoí in Phil. 1:13 and probably elsewhere in the writings of Paul (Phil. 1:7, 14, 16; Col. 4:18; 2 Tim. 2:9; Phile. 1:10, 13, in bonds or imprisonment for the sake of the gospel; Heb. 10:34; 11:36; Jude 1:6; Sept.: Judg. 15:14; Job 39:5; Ps. 2:3; Jer. 27:2).

“(B) In the neuter plural tá desmá. In Luke’s writings (Luke 8:29; Acts 16:26; 20:23; 22:30; 23:29; 26:29, 31) meaning that which holds someone bound, without freedom.

“Derivation: desmeúo (1195), to bind, chain; desmeo (1196), to bind with chains; desmophúlax (1200), a prison-keeper.

“Synonyms: súndesmos (4886), something that binds closely; zeuktería (2202), that which yokes; speíra (4686), anything wound, a twisted rope, a body of men at arms; sustrophe (4963), a secret coalition, riotous crowd forming a conspiracy; hálusis (254), a chain.

“Antonym: eleuthería (1657), freedom.”

I would encourage everyone who has the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to compare the data given here on these three Greek words with that offered by Strong, and one will quickly grasp the insufficiency of that source. I’m not implying that one should get rid of his Strong’s, for it is a valuable tool, but one should not rely solely on it in order to arrive at an informed conclusion. I should also scrutinize the mention of the “Textus Receptus” by Zodhiates, for it only amounts to a publisher’s advertisement, contrary to the claims by the advocates of the KJV.

From Zodhiates’ view of the Greek, “hell” is a dark foggy place lacking light, with a secondary meaning of “mental confusion”, elsewhere alluded to as the darkness of Tartarus (or hell), a place of blackness, gloom and tempest. For the English word translated “chain”, there are two Greek words numbered by Strong as 4577 and 1199. In Zodhiates on “chain” #4577 is described as a cord, band or chain, and is akin to a binding mechanism or agent. In Zodhiates on “chain” #1199 is described as, “to bind ... band, bond, ligament (or a band of tough tissue that holds bones together), akin to a yoke or twisted rope, or to be locked in prison.

Zodhiates’ best observation was: “... the chains mentioned are not to be understood as literal material shackles ...”. Well, if they’re not “literal material shackles”, what are they? From Zodhiates, it is obvious we are not dealing with the literal, but the figurative. The Bible (both in Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek) is simply filled with figurative idioms, euphemisms and parables unique to the time period when they were written. For instance, in Joseph’s dream, his father was the sun, his mother the moon, and his brothers stars (not literally, but figuratively).

George M. Lamsa, in his Idioms In The Bible Explained did a moderately fair job of making us aware of a portion of the numerous idioms in Scripture, while at the same time he explained on page ix the translators of the KJV “... translated many Eastern idioms and metaphors literally, not knowing their meaning ...”. Other than Lamsa, the only information that one can conveniently find in most Bible dictionaries is under the topic of “parables”.

Simply defined, a parable is to set alongside. From The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. K-Q, we read in part concerning parables on page 649:

“Parable ... An extended metaphor, or simile, frequently becoming a brief narrative, generally used by men of biblical times for didactic purposes. Since an allegory is also an extension of a simile and since every metaphor presupposes a simile, confusion between the forms of parable and Allegory has frequently and understandably occurred. The wide range of literary types designated as parables by biblical authors has also contributed to this confusion. The most familiar type of parable is the brief narrative which forcefully illustrates a single idea ...”.

Once we understand that many of these terms are veiled in idiomatic language, it behooves us to break the hidden code in which they are written. In particular, “... anything wound (or coiled in a spiral), a twisted rope ...”. This definition is a perfect description of the DNA “double helix” within every cell of a mammal, vegetation or other form of life. It is a violation of Yahweh’s genetic laws, once two alien types of DNA are locked together it forms a half breed plant or animal, which can never be reversed. Such creatures become a type of a third-kind. Therefore, the term “third world”, as used today to describe nonwhite peoples, is not out of order. For instance, a mule (from which we get the term mulatto) is a creature of a third-kind. There is one thing we can be very sure of, and that is the fact that Yahweh never created a creature of a third-kind! So, that brings up a very important question: Where did all of those nonwhite creatures of a third-kind come from? For the answer to that I will repeat the evidence William Finck cited in his The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4:

“In the Enochic literature, in what is called The Book of Giants, the race of fallen angels is said to have perpetrated the corruption of species. From another edition of the Qumran scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6: ‘¹ [... two hundred] ² donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] ³ flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] ⁴ field from every animal, from every [bird ...] ⁵ [...] for miscegenation [...]’. And in the same source, 4Q531, fragment 2: ‘¹ [...] they defiled [...] ² [... they begot] giants and monsters [...] ³ [...] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted ...] ⁴ [...] with its blood and by the hand of [...] ⁵ [giants] which did not suffice for them and [...] ⁶ [...] and they were seeking to devour many [...] ⁷ [...] ⁸ the monsters attacked it.’ Again, 4Q532, Col. 2 fragments 1-6: ‘² [...] flesh [...] ³ al[l ...] monsters [...] will be [...] ⁴ [...] they would arise [...] lacking in true knowledge [...] because [...] ⁵ [...] the earth [grew corrupt ...] mighty [...] ⁶ [...] they were considering [...] ⁷ [...] from the angels upon [...] ⁸ [...] in the end it will perish and die [...] ⁹ [...] they caused great corruption in the [earth ...] ¹⁰ [... this did not] suffice to [...] ¹¹ they will be [...]’. While quite fragmentary, the general theme of these fragments from what is known as the Book of Giants is readily evident.”

We shall now continue to address “the angels that sinned” at 2 Peter 2:4, and “the angels which kept not their first estate” at Jude 6, for they both represent “the sons of God” at Genesis 6:2! These “sons of God” are referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls as “sons of heaven”, and are not the sons of Cain as some commentaries declare. That the fallen angels were called “sons of heaven” is obvious in The Book Of Enoch, 7:1-2 where it states:

“¹ It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. ² And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other: Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.” This is very similar to what we find in The Book Of Jasher (a book mentioned twice in our present Bibles), chapter 4, verse 18:

“And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.” To add to this, we read from the Internet at:

www.piney.com/ApocalypticIndex.html

The Book Of Adam 7:2:

“And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, ... Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, .... and let us beget children.” [(3) An Aramaic text reads ‘Watchers’ here (J.T. Milik, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976, p. 167].

It may come as a surprise to some, but the Ante-Nicene Fathers also understood that the fallen angels “commingled” and formed “that most infamous race.” Ante-Nicene Fathers, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Bk. IV, ch. XXXVI. ¶4:

“Since the Son of God is always one and the same, He gives to those who believe on Him a well of water [springing up] to eternal life, but He causes the unfruitful fig-tree immediately to dry up; and in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them, and [acted as He did] in order that He might put a check upon the sins of these men, but [that at the same time] He might preserve the archetype, the formation of Adam. And it was He who rained fire and brimstone from heaven, in the days of Lot, upon Sodom and Gomorrah, ‘an example of the righteous judgment of God,’ that all may know, ‘that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down, and cast into the fire’.” [brackets not mine]

After establishing some of the basic elements of our subject, it is time we consider Rev. 12:7-9 where we read:

“⁷ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, ⁸ And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. ⁹ And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

Some people errantly place this entire passage in the future, whereas the preliminary confrontation ignited into a war long before the creation of Adam, and has continued to this very day. It’s just a matter of identifying the various “men” or “pieces” on Satan’s chessboard. What is more, this war has developed in stages, three of which should be identified as, (1) the pre-Adamic rebellion of 1/3rd of the angels, (2) the sexual seduction of Eve, and (3) the sons of heaven raping the daughters of Seth at Gen. 6:2, producing mutated giants (a trace left in the jewish gene-pool of today).

Of these three incursions by fallen angels, the occurrence at Genesis 6:1-4 is the least questioned by critics. The second incidence, with the sexual seduction of Eve by Satan himself, is only comprehended by a few who understand it is a cardinal doctrine on which the remainder of the Bible rests. The pre-Adamic rebellion by the fallen angels being the least understood.

There is one very important factor about angels the serious Bible student should understand, and that is the fact that an angel has the ability to change his physical form between that of man, animal, or bird. This is verified for “man” at Enoch 68:5 where it states:

“The name of the second is Kesabel, who pointed out evil counsel to the sons of the holy angels, and induced them to corrupt their bodies by generating mankind.”

This passage shows, if an angel can change himself into the shape of men and procreate with Adamite women, undoubtedly he could also change his shape into an ape or monkey and procreate with them. You will notice Enoch says “generating” not “creating”. Josephus records where an angel appeared as an owl, Antiquities 19:8:2.

From all of this evidence, I strongly hold to the idea that Yahweh never created the other races, but they are the result of angel-animal unions. I know there are many in Identity teaching a sixth and eighth day creation. They conjecture the other races were created during the sixth eon, and Adam during eighth. My own premise reached from reading Scripture is: the other races are genetic misfits never created by Yahweh. Therefore, Yahweh never classified them as “kind after kind”, or that they were “good.”

Some may argue that I have no Scripture to support my conclusion, but I contend that I do! To accomplish this, I will cite Genesis 2:19-20:

“¹⁹ And out of the ground Yahweh Elohim formed* every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. ²⁰ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” (*See Isaiah 43:7)

Surely Adam wasn’t looking among the lions, tigers or elephants for a wife! That would be absurd! But if among the animals, there were some female negros or female mongolians (that were half animal and half fallen angel), it wouldn’t be quite as ridiculous (though highly Scripturally forbidden). After all, the half-breed Cain had a similar experience in finding a wife, recorded at Genesis 4:16-17:

“¹⁶ And Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. ¹⁷ And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”

Neither did Cain look among the lions, tigers or elephants for a wife! If anything, Cain probably found a wife among the half-animal and half-angel mongolians. I would point out another book, The Book Of Adam And Eve, bk. 2, ch. 1, which falsely claims that Cain married his twin sister, Luluwa, which has to be a blatant lie. Likewise, a note on page 223 claims in part, “... otherwise Cain could not have taken a wife, and have had children by her ...”. In other words, this lie claims there were no other people living at that time! How absurd! Although I have a copy, I don’t recommend it for others!

At Gen. 4:11-12, we read that Cain was “cursed” thusly: “¹¹ And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand; ¹² When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” This is evidence that Cain was kicked out of the family, never to return, and that would include marriage!

On the other hand, Adam was created* as a prototype for his race, and could only receive a wife created* from the original model of his own body. To corrupt Adam’s prototype by miscegenation is a violation of Yahweh’s genetic laws! After Yahweh had taken from Adam some of his genetic code to “built up” Eve, she was the first to break these genetic laws by committing adultery with Satan! (*See Isaiah 43:7)

For Eve to do what she did, she had to hate her own body that came genetically from Adam! Today we would call such a woman “a man hater”, or for that matter a man “a woman hater”. The truth is, an Adam-man is no good without an Adam-woman, and an Adam-woman is no good without an Adam-man. What it amounts to is, there is no other “hate crime” greater than mixing one’s race with an alien. Miscegenation is tantamount to spitting in faces of one’s mother and father! In fact, it would be equivalent to spitting in the faces of the mother and father of every generation back to Adam and Eve, and spitting in the face of Yahweh Himself who created our first genetically White parents!

The purpose of this paper has been to show the possibility that the “angels chained in darkness” means they were locked genetically in a black-skinned body, rather than in a cave or dungeon somewhere!