Based on:
1. Reversing Hermon: The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ ($9.95 USD Kindle Reader)
2. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible ($8.99 USD Kindle Reader)
Abstract
Most Christians remain wholly ignorant of the pragmatic learning they miss out on by either not knowing or actively resisting the Enochian backstory. This paper aims to capitalize on the work of the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser, and extend it in a way that resonates as a significant revelation in terms the book of 1st Enoch.
Our focus will be on a specific Biblical passage: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul outlines functional church doctrine around gender roles in worship and church function. Using the framework provided by Dr. Heiser in his book, Reversing Hermon, we will briefly discuss three main non-Enochic explanations or interpretations of this passage. Furthermore, we will critique Dr. Heiser's own argument as an explanation, evaluating its merits and identifying where it falls short.
Next, we will explore a fifth argument that relies entirely on the backdrop of the book of 1st Enoch. We will make very specific references within the 1st Enoch context that will finally and utterly lift the veil surrounding this passage, leaving perhaps no stone unturned. This will provide us with a clear view of Paul's reasoning.
Based on this comprehensive examination taken together with other existing evidences, we will propose that the book of 1st Enoch is to be seen as a critical underlayment of the entire accepted biblical canon – all sixty-six books that make up the commonly accepted Bible. Our argument will posit that the book of 1 Enoch is a supremely critical text, which must be taken into full account in order to understand the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ fully. As such, we intend to prove that without 1st Enoch and its story, it is impossible to comprehend the entirety of passages like 1 Corinthians 11. Thereby making 1st Enoch an indispensable part of the story of the Bible.
Our target scripture passage
We begin our journey by reading the core passage under examination:
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Argument #1: Visiting human messengers
Paul was simply referring to human άγγελοι (angeloi), messengers or envoys from other churches. Paul is concerned that they will be offended by uncovered (i.e., unveiled) women in the Corinthian church. A parallel (so this view argues) is 1 Cor 14:23 (“If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds”). [204] An alternative to the human envoy view is that the angeloi were hostile, unbelieving spies in the churches. [205]
ISSUES: Dr. Heiser primarily pointed out a problem with the argument; it presumes the angels are human visitors, specifically mature Christians, who have come to minister. Additionally, the argument contends that these visitors will somehow be offended if the married women they encounter are not wearing a head covering.
Admittedly, one could potentially argue this point based on cultural norms. However, this does not adequately explain several things. For example, why is this considered so critically offensive that it requires a substantial amount of writing to address it?
In examining the practices of the first century, we find no evidence suggesting that a woman's manner of dress, specifically regarding head coverings, was so objectionable that it would dissuade visiting ministers. The degree to which this is portrayed as offensive seems grossly exaggerated.
Furthermore, the argument uses 1 Corinthians 14:23 as support, in which the new arrivals are referred to as outsiders (ἰδιῶται idiōtai "uninstructed ones") or unbelievers (ἄπιστοι apistoi "unbelievers").
Now, let's question this point. Why would people who are not instructed in Christ, or those who do not believe in Christ, care whether married women cover their heads or not? Why would these individuals concern themselves with the notion of "church order"? These questions call the relevance of the argument into question and merit further discussion.
Examining ancient literature, inscriptions, and artwork, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the cultural norms and practices of the first century and earlier related to women covering their heads.
Roman Literature: The Roman poet Ovid, in his work "The Art of Love," mentions women covering their heads as part of the palla's proper wear, which was a type of large shawl worn over their bodies. Also, Plutarch, writing in the late 1st and early 2nd century, in "The Roman Questions" explicitly states that prudent Roman women should cover their heads outdoors (Question 14).
Greek Literature: In the Homeric epic, the Odyssey (composed around the 8th century BCE, but telling of a society many centuries earlier), when Penelope meets the disguised Odysseus, she covered her face with a veil, demonstrating that respectable women typically covered their heads (Odyssey 19.216).
Ancient Coins and Sculpture: Various images on ancient Greco-Roman coins and sculptures display women with head coverings, reflecting the societal expectations of the time. An example can be found in the numerous statues of the goddess Tyche, the personification of a city's fortunes, who was typically depicted wearing a mural crown and a veil.
Jewish writings: Moving to Jewish sources, the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish oral traditions compiled in the 2nd century CE, has laws relating to women's head coverings within the tractate Ketuboth (7:6). It associates the uncovering of a woman's hair with adultery, indicating that it was proper for a wife to cover her hair.
Please note that while these sources fill out our understanding of the cultural practices of the time, they do not necessarily imply that these societies had 'hang-up's' about women covering their heads. Nonetheless, these observations do suggest that a woman's head being covered, especially in public, was a widely accepted norm.
While one may argue societal norms, there are two points to make from the data above.
Firstly, there is evidence that this norm was applied mainly to the outdoors and not indoors. Secondly, this norm was applied as a part of the culture and not necessarily because of the church.
One then wonders, why is Paul making it a point of order for the conduct within church premises? Moreover, why is Paul linking this to God? The head of Christ, the head of man, and the head of woman.
What do pagan cultural norms have to do with how the church of Christ worships indoors? It certainly poses an intriguing question.
Argument #2: Angels offended by disorder
The angels are to be regarded as supernatural beings in God’s service who are guardians of the created order. Paul fears that gender roles might be transgressed, thereby offending the angels who guard creation order.[206]
ISSUES: If the angelic beings brought into view by 1 Corinthians 11:10 are divine heavenly beings concerned with cosmic order, what relevance do female human hairstyles have to this cosmic divine order? Why would guardian angels care about such seemingly trivial matters?
Moreover, there is no evidence from the writings of Second Temple Era Jewish rabbis to suggest that any guardian angelic being takes an interest in women's hairstyles or head coverings. This makes this second argument hardly more convincing than the first. Both arguments lack the compelling force and standing that would induce Paul to expend so much of his teaching energy on these matters.
It begs the question: why would these divine entities be concerned with the mundane aspects of human fashion? And while this is a core question, there is more to the question that we will cover shortly. Until then, we need to examine one more argument concerning angels, order, and cultic worship.
Argument #3: Following Angelic order
Paul is referring to supernatural beings thought to be present within the local church, assigned by God to ensure community purity and proper worship. The emphasis here is church order, not creation order.
ISSUES: The third argument pertains to the belief held by Essene communities that their human worship existed within a broader context of angelic worship. Therefore, in the cultic worship of the Essenes, it was necessary for women to respect the order of worship involving both humans and angels.
However, this perspective does not hold up when considering non-Jewish pagan converts who do not adhere to these Jewish traditions. This is particularly significant given the elimination of male circumcision as a prerequisite for participation in worship. If male circumcision is removed from the cultic order, then why is head covering brought in?
Consequently, an additional overarching concept must be at play here. We require a compelling argument to understand why Paul provided the instructions that are written in 1 Corinthians 11 to a Gentile church. This implies that there exists a reason behind the mention of order, angels, women, and head coverings.
Faint echoes of these reasons can be found within both Jewish and Gentile cultural norms. We are not disregarding these. What we seek is a basis that coherently accounts for, and offers a compelling explanation for all these aspects in one single stroke.
Argument #4: Female hair & attacking angels
Dr. Heiser presents a compelling argument through a detailed yet somewhat complex analysis. He proposes that the Gentile pagan people during Paul's era perceived women's hair as a part of their sexual functionality. Based on this premise, Heiser draws a link between this viewpoint and Paul's statement "because of the angels". He asserts that Paul's comment was based on this common belief among his contemporaries. Thus, Paul was endeavouring to protect vulnerable women from potential attacks by angelic beings.
Furthermore, Heiser argues that this line of reasoning forms an Enochian foundation for instructing married women to veil their heads. Though this argument might have some validity, it fails to make a strong connection with the Enochian background story. This weakness is acknowledged when revisiting the question proposed earlier, the answer to which will follow shortly. Heiser's argument provides an interesting perspective but lacks solid evidence linking to the Enochian history.
QUESTION: Why just the wives?
Even after reading Dr. Heiser's proposed explanation (Argument #4 mentioned above), we find ourselves grappling with a crucially unanswered question: Why does Paul focus solely on the married woman, overlooking all others? He utterly excludes an entire spectrum of individuals, such as younger women in their teens or twenties, women who have never been married, widows, and even divorced women. A close and careful read of our primary text reveals that only married women are being addressed, which leaves the standing question: Why?
If the argument pivots around just the idea of female hair serving as a sex organ and their potential to incite angelic beings into violence against them, why are only married women considered for this doctrine? Do not all women have hair? Is it not generally long? Are they not all females? Thus—the question persists— why are only married women singled out? Why indeed!
This question has remained unanswered until recently, necessitating clarification. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive response to this compelling question, which in turn yields the concrete and simple linkage needed to unravel Paul's prevailing points and why he is giving the matter any attention at all in his letter.
Moreover, the argument that hair functions as a sex organ might indeed be valid and is certainly more coherent. Its potential failure, however, lies in the complex linking and assumptions needed to bridge the gap from this theory to its possible application in Paul's mind and letter.
The hair-sex-organ theory might play a role, but it seems to lack the persuasive power necessary to elevate it to a level where Paul identifies it as a significant point in his letter. The enthusiasm often used when presenting a critical point is missing here. Therefore, although it could contribute to the broader narrative, it is not be the central point of his argument and indeed cannot be. The lack is too great.
What we need is something more direct. It should lack complex linkage, yet remain compelling enough to fit the picture. The Enochian story will provide what we need to complete this analysis. By using this approach, we can present a simple and strong argument similar to what compelled Paul in his writings.
Interlude: Spoiler alert!
We will first present you with a spoiler as a summarized teaser to directly lay out the argument at hand. Following this, we'll deconstruct the argument bit by bit. This will allow us to systematically reassemble the argument in a manner that aligns with and supports the summary of it.
Argument #5: Watchers & Human Wives
Flatly stated: The Watchers of 1st Enoch targeted the married women according to Genesis 6:1-4. The evidence for this claim is based on the passages found in 1 Enoch 86:1-4. In these verses, the narrative portrays the details of Genesis 6:1-4 in metaphorical language, but it distinctly indicates that the Watchers oppressed, violated, and forced themselves upon (raped) the wives of human husbands. These wives, who were human women referred to as the 'daughters of men', were helpless. The attack was a coercive violation of their will. Furthermore, their husbands were unable to protect them, and they were understandably terrified of the Watchers.
The combined text of Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch 86 suggests a grim picture, where the power of these celestial beings over the mortal men and their wives was sadly absolute. It hints at relentless coercion, leaving the women no choice but to submit to their violent suppressors. The husbands, rendered helpless, could only look on as the atrocities unfolded, instilling in them a profound fear of the Watchers. This analysis will show that the argument holds, providing a well-documented account of the Watchers' actions towards married women with a more complete set of details regarding what happened so long ago.
In turn, understanding the story, with its horrid details, will inform us completely and finally. This clarity will explain why Paul singles out married women in 1 Corinthians 11. It will also shed light on why he leaves out all of the unmarried women, making married women a de facto part of his letter and theology around the matter.
For reference and reading ahead of the details, here is the story as told in 1 Enoch 86:1-6
1 And again, I saw with mine eyes as I slept, and I saw the heaven above, and behold a star fell from heaven, and it arose and eat and pastured amongst those oxen.
2 And after that I saw the large and the black oxen, and behold they all changed their stalls and pastures and their cattle, and began to live with each other.
3 And again, I saw in the vision, and looked towards the heaven, and behold I saw many stars descend and cast themselves down from heaven to that first star, and they became bulls amongst those cattle and pastured with them amongst them.
4 And I looked at them and saw, and behold they let out their privy members, like horses, and began to cover the cows of the oxen, and they all became pregnant and bare elephants, camels, and assess.
5 And all the oxen [husbands] feared them [Watchers] and were affrighted at them, and began to bite with their [Watchers and giants] teeth and to devour, and to gore with their horns.
6 And they [Watchers and giants] began, moreover, to devour those oxen [men]; and behold all of the children [men and women] of the earth began to tremble and quake before them and to flee from them.
Step one: Back to Genesis 6
Digging deeper into Genesis 6:2, we find an English rendition that lacks logical coherence. The English version tends to be too casual and cavalier, a demeanor that contradicts the Enochian backstory and the behavioral traits ascribed to both the Watchers and their hybrid giant offspring.
These beings' violent tendency is not adequately captured in the English translations, thus presenting a depiction that is far from accurate. Consequently, we are faced with a dilemma – either the translations are flawed, or the backstory doesn't hold authentic truth, making the polemic of Enoch appear to be overly embellished, particularly in portraying the violent nature of this defiant act. The extremity of the narrative seems at odds with the foundling suggestiveness of the English translations. Therefore, they present a challenge to the reader, attempting to reconcile the backstory with the present English narrative, and arriving at a unified interpretation of events.
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Our initial step towards reconciling Genesis 6:2 with the violence of the Enochic backstory is to evaluate the verse in its context and suggest alterations to our worldview and comprehension of Moses as he crafted this account under the guidance of providence. The perceptible shift from Genesis 6:1-4 to verse 5 proffers a clear trail that leads us, much like a bloodhound, back to the truth.
Indeed, it is verse 5 that first alerts us to the fact that the comprehensive and detailed story within verses 1 to 4 is anything but frivolous. Specifically, it negates any notion that the angelic sons of God, the Watchers, were innocently requesting the hands of human women in marriage. On the contrary, the event was markedly violent, taking humanity completely by surprise and violating them to an extreme extent.
Polite Angels Vs. Violent Rape
Without the context provided by Enoch, the language used in Genesis 6:2 can seem quite mild and polite. It may appear as though congenial angelic beings have simply arrived one day, noticed attractive females, and then politely sought their fathers' permission to marry them. They were subsequently married and had children. However, this is far from the reality of the situation.
Pastor Alan Nolan from Cornerstone Church in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, USA, has suggested an alternative interpretation. When one examines the original Hebrew text which underpins verse two, it reveals that these human women were "taken"— in other words, they were raped. This interpretation paints not a story of polite request and consent, but rather one of violation and assault. This assertion, he argues, echoes a darker, more sinister tone that is being conveyed in this verse and confirmed in the Enochic text.
Genesis 6:2 is a controversial verse that reads:
וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹב֖וֹת הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מכל אשר בחרו
A literal translation would be:
And the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were good and they took for themselves wives of all that they chose.
The main difficulty lies in the identification of the "sons of God" and the meaning of the verb "took". While, we have already settled that the "sons of God" are fallen angels, we now turn to what seem rather coherent given the story. The sons of God are those who had forced sexual relations with human women, producing a race of giants or hybrids. This view is supported by many ancient Jewish and Christian sources, such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon.
If we follow this view, then the verb "took" implies a violent and unnatural act, rather than a lawful and consensual marriage. The word "took" (Hebrew: לקח) can have different nuances depending on the context. It can mean to take something by force, to seize, to capture, or to kidnap (e.g., Genesis 14:12; Judges 21:23; 2 Samuel 11:4). It can also mean to take something by choice, to select, to prefer, or to acquire (e.g., Genesis 6:21; Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 17:15). The context of Genesis 6:2 suggests that the former sense is more appropriate, since the "sons of God" acted according to their lust and disregard for God's order and will. They did not respect the boundaries between heaven and earth, between angelic and human nature, between marriage and fornication. They violated the dignity and rights of the human women and their husbands.
Therefore, a possible translation that reflects this interpretation is:
And the sons of God raped the wives of men when they saw how beautiful they were, and they took for themselves any woman they wanted.
This translation conveys the idea that the "sons of God" (Watchers) did not take unmarried women, but married women already belonging to human men. It also emphasizes the contrast between their lustful desire and God's judgment in the following verses (Genesis 6:3-5). It is consistent with the ancient sources that depict this event as a cause of great corruption and violence on the earth.
However, this translation is not without problems. It is based on a specific interpretation that is not universally accepted by all scholars and traditions. It also adds some words that are not in the original text, such as "raped" and "wives". It may be accused of being too interpretive or too sensational. A more literal translation may be preferred by some readers who want to see what the text actually says, without imposing a particular view on it.
1 Enoch 86:1-4 tells us the story
Apart from the standard misgivings mentioned above, we now have a foundational story that could potentially support the Genesis 6 text. However, we are not solely relying on this argument. Both 1 Enoch 86:1-4 and our target text, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, will contribute to defining what was not only in the mind of Paul as he penned his words but also the thoughts of the Enochic writer and Moses. The perspective about to be presented and pondered will also be reinforced by the rest of the Enochian Watcher story, as discussed in Dr. Heiser's books like "The Unseen Realm" and "Reversing Hermon".
Nevertheless, let's delve into 1 Enoch 86:1-6, specifically verses 1 to 4, with close examination and thoughtful analysis. Our final argument, or coup de gras, will be found in verse four. However, we need to establish a bit of groundwork before we reach this point.
And again, I saw with mine eyes as I slept, and I saw the heaven above, and behold a star fell from heaven, and it arose and eat and pastured amongst those oxen.
It is clear from the text that Enoch experiences a vision while he sleeps. The first thing he observes is the heavens above – the unseen heavenly realms. His gaze captures the sight of a star that falls from heaven, presumably descending to the earthly realm. The star, which can be interpreted as a son of God or a divine heavenly host being, then rises to become visible in this realm, eats and pastures among the oxen – or human beings in this context.
Our proposal states that this verse provides a summarized description of Nechash, the deceiver from Genesis 3. It is thought that it is this star that approaches Eve with temptation. There is also a backstory here which we will further explore once we reach verse 4 of 1 Enoch 86. However, we are not quite ready for this yet, so we'll hold that thought for the moment. The crucial point to understand here in verse 1 is how it narrates the story of Genesis 3 metaphorically.
Therefore, going forward, we need to identify the metaphorical animals representing what entities exist in the reality of the theological story. We will consider examples from 1st Enoch, Genesis, and other Old Testament scriptures.
- - Stars — sons of God, Watchers, divine heavenly spirits.
- - Oxen — mostly male human beings, sometimes both.
- - Pasture — a realm of existence (earthly, heavenly, etc.).
- - Arose — appearance within a realm (pasture).
And after that I saw the large and the black oxen, and behold they all changed their stalls and pastures and their cattle, and began to live with each other.
At the moment, this verse is cause for confusion due to the absence of a supporting story. This shortcoming leaves us questioning the identity of the black oxen and their unusual size, which eclipses that of the average oxen.
One interpretation proposes these oxen to be the Watchers themselves. However, this interpretation encounters several contradictions in subsequent verses where the Watchers are depicted as bulls and oxen are consistently characterized as human men.
Another theory suggests that verse 2 is an anticipatory outlook to a time beyond Genesis 6:2. Here, the large black oxen could indeed be the Nephilim or giants, with 'giant' signifying 'large' and 'black' symbolizing 'very bad.'
The other peculiar element in verse 2 is the idea of "stalls and pasture" transforming. Regardless of what "stalls" may signify, we've already established a high probability that "pasture" represents one of the realms (i.e., heavenly, earthly, underworld). If this interpretation proves correct, "stalls and pasture" could symbolize the transition of bodies (from heavenly to earthly) and the realm (from heaven to earth).
Therefore, a plausible interpretation of this section suggests a foreshadowing of the fallen Watcher sons of God. They abandon both the heavenly realms and their heavenly bodies, adopting the earthly realm and bodies in exchange.
And again, I saw in the vision, and looked towards the heaven, and behold I saw many stars descend and cast themselves down from heaven to that first star, and they became bulls amongst those cattle and pastured with them amongst them.
Arriving at verse 3, it becomes clear that our narrative so far aligns quite nicely with the account in Genesis, particularly in and around chapter three. The Nachash has made its appearance and tempted Eve but failed to "take her". This syncs seamlessly with the datapoints of chapter 3. Advancing in verse 3, we encounter language that evokes the full-scale invasion of the earthly realm by the fallen, rebellious heavenly beings, otherwise known as the 'sons of God', depicted as stars.
Notably, Enoch reorients his gaze from the earth to the heavenly realm. In this second part of his nocturnal vision or dream, he observes the descent of numerous stars. It's noteworthy that he emphasizes that these celestial bodies are descending of their own volition—casting themselves down and not being expelled by God or other angels.
In the latter part of Enoch's description, he reveals that these entities are the 'bulls of heaven'. This phrase is standard Ancient Near Eastern parlance for the Watchers, a term which will also be used in Old Testament scripture. Furthermore, we glean once again that these beings "pasture" among the cattle, including both oxen and cows, denoting both human males and human females.
NOTE: The "bulls of heaven" are supernatural creatures found in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythology and literature. They are most famously associated with the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the longest and best-preserved pieces of ancient literature, written in Akkadian, a Semitic language.
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Ishtar (Inanna in Sumerian), the goddess of love and war, is spurned by the hero Gilgamesh. In revenge, she asks her father Anu, the god of heaven, to send the Bull of Heaven to ravage the earth. The Bull of Heaven is a destructive force, causing famine and devastation. Eventually, however, it is slain by Gilgamesh and his companion Enkidu.
The "bulls of heaven" motif also reverberates through biblical and other 2nd Temple Jewish writings. In 1 Enoch, for example, celestial cows symbolize figures in Israel's primeval history. And in Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement ritual involves two goats: one to be sacrificed (just as the Bull of Heaven was by Gilgamesh and Enkidu), the other to bear the sins of the people out into the wilderness, assigned to Azazel - a desert demon figure.
The use of bull imagery is not confined to these sources. Bull symbolism is rich and varied throughout the ANE, including Egypt, where bull deities like Apis were worshipped. Bulls often represented fertility, strength, and royal power.
The connection between the "bulls of heaven" and biblical text can be further understood through the lens of ancient cosmology. In ancient Semitic mythology--Ugaritic texts, for instance--the sky is depicted as a divine bull whose body is adorned with stars.
In Job 38:31-32, we see a reference to astronomical constellations as part of God's creation. The Bull of Heaven can possibly be associated with Taurus, a bull-shaped constellation. Such connection may imply that events on earth have celestial counterparts, reflecting an ancient worldview where earthly happenings were mirroring cosmic, divine activities.
We are now ready to link back to Genesis 6:2.
Shortly thereafter, we will make the final and simple link back to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. This connection will anchor Paul's thoughts and writings to the texts we are exploring.
And I looked at them and saw, and behold they let out their privy members, like horses, and began to cover the cows of the oxen, and they all became pregnant and bare elephants, camels, and assess.
Of course, the "them" Enoch is looking at are the sons of God (Watchers, fallen stars). The scene turns suddenly graphic with the Watchers letting out their privy members, like horses. The graphic imagery is unmistakable and clear. The next phrase "began to cover" is Enoch's way of politely saying that they mounted the women to have sex with them. It is the final phrase that makes the back-link to Genesis 6 and to 1 Corinthians 11 very clear: "the cows of the oxen" — that is — the wives (women) of the husbands (men).
Other women were ignored. Only the married women were attacked and raped by the fallen sons of God. With this in strong view, it is time to restate our proposed translation of Genesis 6:2
"And the sons of God raped the wives of men when they saw how beautiful they were, and they took for themselves any woman they wanted."
If this wasn't enough, read and hear (understand) what Enoch follows up with for the rest of chapter 86. Consider the scene of invader divine beings who are bigger and more powerful than the human men, who find it impossible to protect their wives from the sexual rampage of the Watchers!
5 And all the oxen [husbands] feared them [Watchers] and were affrighted at them, and began to bite with their [Watchers and giants] teeth and to devour, and to gore with their horns. 6 And they [Watchers and giants] began, moreover, to devour those oxen; and behold all of the children [men and women] of the earth began to tremble and quake before them and to flee from them.
The text as a whole demonstrates a perfect parallelism with the first sixteen chapters of 1 Enoch. This connection can also be traced back to both the Old and New Testaments. This parallelism is most evident in 1 Corinthians 11, and is further enhanced when correlating it with 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1. The potential references to Romans 1 and the sins of the Watchers further strengthen this correlation.
Bringing 1 Corinthians 11 back into view
The narrative that we discern from Genesis 6, in conjunction with 1st Enoch 86, reveals a horrifying landscape. The story unfolds the terrifying violation of human husbands and wives by powerful animalistic spirits from the celestial domains, leaving humans defenseless as they violently attack.
In these brutal circumstances, husbands make futile attempts to safeguard their wives from forced violation, and are compelled to not only endure ongoing transgressions, but also the illegitimate offspring resulting from these unholy unions.
Their powerlessness is so profound against the Bulls of Heaven, that they are exploited at will; used and abused, even consumed as sustenance by both the aggressive fallen Watchers and their illegitimate giant progeny. The violence is not exclusively towards men and women only—animals and the very planet itself also bear the brunt of the rampant rampage unfolding around them.
Let us be very clear: until this time, there had never been an instance of such violence and violation of God's order and His people or His creation. The attack was swift, severe, and came with substantial violence from heavenly beings and their bastard children.
Now, it is true, Cain had murdered Abel. Yet, that singular act pales in comparison to the unruly violence of the raging Bulls of Heaven against the entire earthly realm and all of its inhabitants.
We can now fully reintroduce 1 Corinthians and address the question posed at the beginning of this section: Within the context of 1 Corinthians 11, why does Paul's doctrine exclusively mention married women and no other? The answer lays starkly in the combined story details of Genesis 6:2 and 1 Enoch 86:1-4. These texts suggest that the Bulls of Heaven, also known as the Watchers, descended and pursued exclusively married women. Yet, the question persists: why?
The explanation could possibly be rooted in a prevalent mentality that has persisted in various human despots and tyrants through the millennia. Many historical accounts exist about oppressive men using their strength, authority, terror tactics, and arrogance to force themselves upon married women. These immoral individuals would then send the violated women back to their husbands, effectively fracturing families and leaving offspring who would then be the subjects of familial hatred and scorn.
While it's plausible that first-century pagans perceived women's hair as a type of sexual organ capable of tempting fallen angelic beings, the logical connection to Paul's perspective is speculative and weak at best. The true cornerstone of our updated argument can be found in the assertion that the head covering serves as a symbol of authority—a cautionary sign to any angelic beings that God Himself is ultimately the power and protector of the married woman. This sequence of divine safeguarding extends from God to Christ, then to husbands, and finally to each married woman. Intriguingly, every human being involved in this celestial hierarchy is covered—including the husbands.
A more direct and straightforward concept posits that Watcher beings, fueled by lust, harbor a distinct preference for married human women. Their preference could originate from motives related to tarnishing God's harmoniously ordered creation. Additionally, this propensity may also be influenced by God's explicit prohibition against them engaging in sexual activities, despite the fact they boast sexual organs. This idea is documented in Isaiah 6:2, which refers to Seraphim and 'feet.'
It's important to address that the idea of heavenly entities having sexual organs is not merely supposition but has a basis in biblical scripture. Specifically, this concept stems from Isaiah 6:2. This particular verse verifies that angelic figures indeed possess these organs. Taking these elements together, the connection from Paul's perspective in 1 Corinthians 11 back to both Genesis 6:1-4 and 1st Enoch 86 appears as clear as possible.
Bringing Enoch fully aboard
The final point to address involves critically evaluating our path to deconstructing 1 Corinthians 11, a journey routed through Genesis 6:1-4 and the revealing details in 1 Enoch 86:1-6. If it's not yet abundantly clear, we ought to notice that the core of Paul's doctrine and argument would remain obscure and insufficiently explained without Enoch. It is essential to comprehend what Paul is endeavoring to convey. This recognition should lead us to see that Paul was relying heavily on the Enochic narrative found in passages like 1 Enoch 86.
If Paul is honestly interpreted in this way, the importance of the Enochic narrative becomes an undeniable part of scholarly reasoning and a basis for our theology. It is no longer feasible to dismiss the Enochic writings as integral to both Second Temple Era Jewish thought and the reasoning and critical thinking employed by Christian apostles in the first century.
The wealth of extraordinarily compelling evidence denoting the indirect and direct usage of Enoch across all sixty-six books of our canonical bible paints a vital narrative: Enoch greatly matters. Without understanding this narrative, we cannot hope to fathom the depth of the violence perpetrated by the Watchers, their impact on humanity and the human condition, or the efforts of Jesus Christ to reverse the damage they have wrought over the last 5,000+ years of history.
This crucial point is underscored by Jesus' words regarding the era preceding His return and second coming. Jesus tells us, "as it was in the days of Noah". Examining this statement from Jesus within the context and through the perspective of the Enoch narrative, we can infer that the information found within Enoch is indispensable as history approaches the brink of the period preceding Jesus’ return.
To overlook or disregard this information, or to react to it with hostility, might put some of us in grave jeopardy, especially considering what we are likely to confront over the next fifty years. We must recognize the wisdom in welcoming this information into our minds, as it can enable us to understand not only what Jesus has faced in this cosmic war over many centuries, but also what lies ahead in the forthcoming years and decades.
Final thought ...
After a thorough examination, I am intrigued by Paul's phrase, "a symbol of authority" with regard to the head covering of a married woman. Considering the broader context, what can we infer and discern as a practical application of this concept of a married woman's head covering in church?
The answer appears to be twofold:
1. WARNING: The head covering serves as a warning to both gods (referred to here as 'bulls') and demons (synonymous with 'dead giants') that any transgressions against married women, similar to those committed in the past, will result in severe and immediate retribution. The sovereign authority of both God and Jesus is present in men (the husbands) and women (their wives). Hence, the directive to these spiritual beings is clear: DO NOT TOUCH!!
2. REASSURANCE: The head covering also stands as a memorial to both men and women of the events that transpired in antiquity and the divine protection we now have from our Savior and King, Jesus Christ. We will no longer be savagely attacked without the Lord's direct and immediate retribution once we are His by Cross and Spirit! This symbolic act of head-covering of wives serves as a reminder of Jesus's triumph and signifies that we, as followers, are now essentially designated as replacements for those 'bulls'. Like the rainbow of Noah, the head-covering of a married woman serves as a powerful promise of who we all are and what we shall become in the Great and Notable Day of the Lord!
FOLLOW-UP
Having absorbed all of the above information, it's possible to arrive at a conclusion: it should put an end to the idea that Paul is exhibiting misogyny towards women. His argument has nothing to do with advocating male superiority or denigrating women to a lesser role.
The sign of authority here represents God's dominion and protection through Christ over both men and women. This is specifically highlighted in relation to women, considering the horrors that the fallen sons of God represent, not only in ancient times, but also persisting through history until this very day.
Hence, Paul is not attempting to subjugate women. Instead, he aims to underscore the narrative of our violation and God's eventual rescue of us from entities possessing power deemed insurmountable by human standards. Moreover, his goal is to indicate our ultimate position within the celestial family, one that is elevated far above the creatures that once ravaged us. Thus, exchanging our current lowly status with a higher one, as promised.