There is a passage in the New Testament that has, as far as I can remember, caused a lot of debate and controversy among Christians. Most people simply ignore it all together, pretending it’s not there or simply dismissing it away as some strange long-forgotten custom that we don’t fully understand. Others try to understand why it’s there but do so with almost complete and utter ignorance as to it’s origins. I intend to demonstrate today that the passage in question and the custom referred too isn’t all that hard to explain or understand if one realizes that the story of the Watchers (that is that angels once had sexual relations with women) was a commonly held belief of believers around the time that the New Testament was written. But before we dive into that, I have a challenge for you.
Most Christians follow Jesus as the example of their faith, and rightly so. I remember growing up as a young man in the faith jokingly referring to words in red (as many Bibles would print the word of Jesus in red lettering instead of black) as having “double weight”. If you were studying any topic at all in the Bible, if you have a support verse in red it was an extra special find having double the importance of anything else in the entire Bible. Paul’s words, which most of Christianity uses as the basis for most modern doctrines, are nice, but Jesus words are still the “trump card”. So, if Jesus called some form of writing (book, letter, etc) “scripture,” and if he referred to it when teaching, and if he expected his contemporaries to be familiar with it (i.e. have actually read it), wouldn’t most Christians logically want to be sure they also read and are familiar with that book? So here is the challenge.
There is a story in the New Testament where where Jesus is questioned about the topic of marriage in heaven. Here for reference is that story and Jesus’ recorded answer:
23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to [a]Jesus and questioned Him, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up [b]children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; and the first married and died, and having no [c]children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 It was the same also with the second brother, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her in marriage.”
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, since you do not [d]understand the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Matt. 22:23-29
The challenge I have for you today is find me the scripture Jesus is talking about here. Clearly Jesus is telling his challengers that they do not understand the scriptures and then, I would argue, reminds them that the scriptures say that in the resurrection we will be like angels and that in heaven there is no marriage. Please understand I’m paraphrasing the argument here and you may suggest I’m adding a few things but read again. Jesus is criticizing his audience for not understanding the scripture and then referencing how we will be like angels and not given in marriage. So, where is that scripture he’s talking about?
I will submit to you that you that no matter how hard you try, you will not find the “scripture” Jesus is referring here because our modern Bibles no longer contain the “scripture” Jesus is referring too. The church has now fully rejected the very book of “scripture” that Jesus is referencing and the one that would have explained it. IF the church had not rejected the Book of Enoch, for example, they would see that the book described how a group of angels sinned by having sexual relations with women and that these angels were scolded by “God” and reminded specifically that women were made for man because man is mortal but that the angels themselves are immortal and thus are not given “mates” (or given in marriage). I submit therefore that the story would make sense to the people Jesus was speaking too because they were all familiar with the Book of Enoch.
Church historians are well aware that the book of Enoch was once considered “scripture” in the time of “Jesus” by BOTH the Jews and early Christians (which is a bit redundant because the early Christians WERE Jews but that’s another story). In fact, the Jews and Christians both rejected the book of Enoch only after several hundreds of years AFTER Jesus died. This means that the book was known, read and considered “scripture” in the time of Jesus and, I personally believe, Jesus was referencing it here. Unfortunately the Book offended a more “modern” understanding and was ultimately rejected by the church. Wikipedia summarizes the removal of the Book of Enoch from both Judaism and Christianity like this:
Although evidently widely known during the development of the Hebrew Bible canon, 1 Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh [what we now call the Old Testament] and the typical canon of the Septuagint [a Greek translation of the Tanakh] and therefore, also from the writings known today as the Deuterocanon.[7][8] One possible reason for Jewish rejection of the book might be the textual nature of several early sections of the book that make use of material from the Torah [what we call the first five books of the Bible]; for example, 1 En 1 is a midrash of Deuteronomy 33.[9][10] The content, particularly detailed descriptions of fallen angels, would also be a reason for rejection from the Hebrew canon at this period – as illustrated by the comments of Trypho the Jew when debating with Justin Martyr on this subject: “The utterances of God are holy, but your expositions are mere contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you; nay, even blasphemies, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God.”[11] Today, the Ethiopic Beta Israel community of Jews is the only Jewish group that accepts the Book of Enoch as canonical and still preserves it in its liturgical language of Ge’ez where it plays a central role in worship and the liturgy.[12]
By the 4th century, the Book of Enoch was mostly excluded from Christian biblical canons, and it is now regarded as scripture only by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.[13][14][15]
Wikipedia, “The Book of Enoch” [clarification in brackets above are my own]
Several key things need to be understood here. First is the acknowledgement that both Jesus and early “Christians” accepted the book of Enoch as scripture in his day and that it was “widely read”. Secondly, that it’s rejection by Christianity was not “mostly complete” until the 4th century (about 300 years AFTER Jesus died). Thirdly, that it “may” have been rejected merely because the modern believer at the time felt it was a blasphemy to say angels revolted or sinned. That last part is a little hard to accept considering every Christian I know believes angels sinned and revolted but let’s put that aside for now. Lastly, there are still both Jews and Christian today who have retained the Book of Enoch as scripture even now. The real problem is, most “modern” believers weren’t comfortable with the book being scripture any longer and thus rejected it. BUT, when Jesus made this statement, that book was widely considered “scripture”.
All this leads to today’s main focus, which is a strange passage in the New Testament by Paul that is widely rejected and misunderstood. When I quote it below it will almost speak for itself and go without needing any further explanation. Of course I can’t do that. I will be commenting after.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.
1 Corinthian 11:7-11
It’s that last sentence that trips a lot of people up “a woman ought to have authority over her own head because of the angels.” This statement also comes right after we are reminded that women were made for man. This is the same rebuke given to the watchers in the book of Enoch when the angels are reminded that woman was made for man. In other words, I maintain that if you had the Book of Enoch in your arsenal of books you call scripture, the passage makes a lot more sense. In this passage a woman is reminded that man is over her and that she was created for man. She is also reminded to submit to man on account of angels. In other words, as I understand it, don’t forget you were made for man, not angels! How strange of statement without Enoch as a reference.
Now I want to end here because I’m getting ahead of the book. I would like to remind those reading that I’m reading a book someone wrote about the lost history of the Watchers and merely commending on things I think of when reading. However, the author has hinted that he is going to discuss more about the Book of Enoch in coming chapters so I am opting to keep my thoughts here short and let the author lead the discussion.