veiling and the book of enoch

[merryheart]

The Book of Enoch expands on the Genesis 6:1-8 passage, telling a story about fallen "watcher" angels who took women and mated with them, and taught them sorcery. That the children which were born of them were ravenous and evil and that they consumed all the food, all the animals, and were consuming humans as well. That the flood was sent to destroy them. That there was continued mixing also after the flood among the Canaanites. if there were any truth in that story at all - even the smallest amount - or even if a people strongly believed that there was, i can certainly understand why they would want to hide their women. (It doesnt mean that I think they still should - but it does give a better motive for why it exists)

 

[SummaScriptura]

Stating that the "book of Enoch" is quoted in the Bible is an issue. The "book of Enoch" is not quoted in the Bible. The verse you spoke of mentioned the prophet Enoch, not a "book of Enoch". The prophet Enoch was righteous, and walked with God. He would never have authored or authorized such a book. No such book was God-breathed, neither did God authorize or inspire anyone else to write it. it is similar to the Qur'an, However, the "book of Enoch" goes further into heresy, saying for example of an angel named "Phanuel", in chapter 40, verse 9:

who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life

It's blatantly heretical.

How is that heretical? What does "set over" mean that you consider "set over" heretical? Have you not read, "Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?" Hebrews 1:14

Enoch seems to be saying the angel has the responsibility of those who will repent and be saved. Like, arranging divine appointments, as one possibility.

 

[SummaScriptura]

and yet it was part of the Christian Canon until 364 AD
and it still is part of the Ethiopian canon.

Many early church fathers referred to it.

It was almost certainly removed by the amalgamation of the Church with politics because it proclaims repeatedly that the evil kings and rulers have a future in hell

still not the point of this thread, although it seems to be the only point anyone wants to discuss

Here's an intereesting one fer you...

I have been befriending a guy from Eritrea. He showed me his evangelical Christian Protestant Bible in his language. It has the books in the West we call Apocrypha at the end but guess what book is at the end? Enoch!

 

[SummaScriptura]

what about the angels who fell? did they also wear veils when they wanted forgiveness? I can not remember.

Yes. "And when I awaked, I came unto them, and they were all sitting gathered together, weeping in Abelsjail, which is between Lebanon and Seneser, with their faces covered." Enoch 13:9

 

[razeontherock]

That the flood was sent to destroy them. That there was continued mixing also after the flood among the Canaanites.

Does the book of Enoch refer to anything after the flood, other than Christ Jesus our Lord? I find it quite interesting that Enoch paints Him as all 3

 

[SummaScriptura]

There is no forgiveness for angels. I don't think any books, (deutero-canonical or otherwise) specifically state that this pre-flood issue is the original fall of satan, but if any such thing happened, it was done by angels that were fallen.

She said "when they wanted" forgiveness. They did. "they besought me to draw up a petition for them that they might find forgiveness, and to read their petition in the presence of the Lord of heaven" Enoch 13:4

 

[razeontherock]

Yes. "And when I awaked, I came unto them, and they were all sitting gathered together, weeping in Abelsjail, which is between Lebanon and Seneser, with their faces covered." Enoch 13:9

That doesn't literally mean wearing a veil though. Or does it? I think it denotes shame. Surely a Muslim veil is not due to shame?!?

 

[razeontherock]

She said "when they wanted" forgiveness. They did. "they besought me to draw up a petition for them that they might find forgiveness, and to read their petition in the presence of the Lord of heaven" Enoch 13:4

Yup, isn't that awesome?

And did G-d's response include anything about them being granted repentance, or Salvation? It seems to me we are given whatever insight into this we may have, so that we will appreciate the unqueness of having a body. Calling us "Kings and Priest," really means something to HIM!

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yup, isn't that awesome?

And did G-d's response include anything about them being granted repentance, or Salvation? It seems to me we are given whatever insight into this we may have, so that we will appreciate the unqueness of having a body. Calling us "Kings and Priest," really means something to HIM!

No, you're right. It is truly breath-taking to realize only humankind are given the opportunity to repent. Makes me want to do it more.

 

[merryheart]

That doesn't literally mean wearing a veil though. Or does it? I think it denotes shame. Surely a Muslim veil is not due to shame?!?

I don't think the veil is actually Muslim, I think it is culturally middle eastern. Jewish women and Christian women wore head coverings and veils too. Muslims are the only ones who actually say it is for the women's protection. Jewish traditions did have it as a shame. (according to Katharine Bushnell in "The Badge of Guilt and Shame")

 

[merryheart]

Does the book of Enoch refer to anything after the flood, other than Christ Jesus our Lord? I find it quite interesting that Enoch paints Him as all 3

There are bits said to be Noah's inclusions that have some post flood information. Nothing specifically from Enoch regarding the watchers after the flood. It might be Jubilees that expands on the nephilim or anakim in Canaan.

 

[Booko]

I don't think the veil is actually Muslim, I think it is culturally middle eastern. Jewish women and Christian women wore head coverings and veils too. Muslims are the only ones who actually say it is for the women's protection. Jewish traditions did have it as a shame. (according to Katharine Bushnell in "The Badge of Guilt and Shame")

The pagan Arabs before Muhammad veiled their women. It isn't originally from Islam.

 

[smaneck]

The pagan Arabs before Muhammad veiled their women. It isn't originally from Islam.

As did the elite classes within both the Sassanian and the Byzantine Empires. It is a practice which goes back to the Greeks and Mesopotamia. I'm not sure all the Arabs veiled their women in the Jahiliyya. Muhammad's first wife, Khadijah was not veiled or kept in seclusion. Muhammad started doing this during the Medinan period when the privacy of the Holy Family came to be an issue.

 

[razeontherock]

Aah, so in Islam it's in lieu of sunglasses?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I hope to have my book out this spring...

The Book of Enoch: Messianic Prophecy Edition

 

[SummaScriptura]

And when I awaked, I came unto them, and they were all sitting gathered together, weeping in Abelsjail, which is between Lebanon and Seneser, with their faces covered.

That doesn't literally mean wearing a veil though. Or does it? I think it denotes shame. Surely a Muslim veil is not due to shame?!?

I think in ancient times, when people were in mouring and covered their faces in shame they essentially threw a cloth over their head which also covered their face. Isn't that the way you understand it? The Watchers were wearing a veil in this passage, I think.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>For the record, I think that covering or secluding women is a misguided approach to their protection, but even in the OT women are referred to as veiled and covered - even though it was never commanded.

It might have been misguided.

I mean, if you're seeking to prevent angels from lusting, I think the angels have plenty of other opportunities to do so...

For the record, here's my view of Paul in "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." 1 Cor.11:10. I think he is showing that Jewish ideas about angels were quite different from our own, affected as they are by centuries of Western philosophy and theology. Jews thought angels could and would sin. We think they've all stood that test and now cannot sin. I think the Jews had it right. Now, do I also think they had it right that covering women's heads prevented angelic carnality? No.

 

[razeontherock]

I think in ancient times, when people were in mouring and covered their faces in shame they essentially threw a cloth over their head which also covered their face. Isn't that the way you understand it? The Watchers were wearing a veil in this passage, I think.

Well this is interesting and perfectly relevant to the thread. And obviously you are more familiar with Enoch's book than I am.

Why would a person in mourning cover their face in shame?

If you look at the current netiquette of facepalm pics, I think that is an accurate portrayal of what's expressed by the phrase "covered their faces in shame." I don't see why a veil would be necessary. I also sincerely hope this is not why women veil! We do have people here who have at least spent some time in the middle east - what do y'all have to say about this? (Y'all is Middle Eastern, right? It's use qualifies as "cultural diversification" here in WI)

You also raised the interesting point of Jews thinking angels could sin, to which I compound the observation that they say satan isn't a fallen angel and there is no such thing. There is forgiveness and redemption for Angels now?

I think we can say with some authority that there is not. This seems to me to be another instance where Jews changed their theology specifically for the purpose of distancing themselves from that little sect within Judaism known as The Way.

 

[razeontherock]

do I also think they had it right that covering women's heads prevented angelic carnality? No.

It is interesting though, that a veil is most effective from the top down view. I'm not suggesting this means that was it's original purpose, it just makes it seem a little more plausible. Any way you look at this, the mere suggestion that Angels could be tempted and sin in this manner is downright disturbing! I mean, what prevents it today?

 

[Booko]

(Y'all is Middle Eastern, right? It's use qualifies as "cultural diversification" here in WI)

Yes. Georgia is in the Middle East of the Deep South, and we say y'all. (And do you know the plural of y'all?)

You also raised the interesting point of Jews thinking angels could sin, to which I compound the observation that they say satan isn't a fallen angel and there is no such thing. There is forgiveness and redemption for Angels now?

I think we can say with some authority that there is not. This seems to me to be another instance where Jews changed their theology specifically for the purpose of distancing themselves from that little sect within Judaism known as The Way.

Well, angelology is not exactly my forte, as you might guess, given I still mostly shun things that as an atheist I would've just branded superstitions.

However, whether angels can be forgiven or not I suppose depends largely on what one believes angels are.

960. By the term "angels" spiritual powers is sometimes meant, and other times you will find that the term means pure and holy souls. Where it is said "I will give My angels charge over you to keep you in all your ways," it means pure souls and true believers. In one station "angel" means those spiritual and divine powers given by God to the body of man which change mankind toward good. These are the "angels" which confirm man.

Sometimes we understand by "angel" those beings and souls who are sanctified from all earthly stations -- that is, who have cut themselves from all worldly things and drawn nigh unto God with all resignation and devotion. If we find a man who has cut himself from all animal and worldly stations and approached nigh to the heavenly conditions, we will say "This being is an angel," because he has nothing to do with earthly things.

All beings of the contingent world have to undergo change: the only thing which is unchangeable is the identity of God. The angel is one of the created beings of God and must undergo changes. Were these beings not to change, they would possess the unity or nature of God. When we want to judge something which is contingent, we look at its changes and understand its nature.

(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 498)

If "angels" refers to spiritual powers (cf. Lincoln's comments re: "better angels of our nature") then no forgiveness is needed.

And I suppose if "angel" is a "pure and holy soul" there wouldn't be a lot of need for forgiveness either.

Well, like I said, it's an area of religious study I've studiously avoided during my lifetime so far.

We could probably start a whole thread just to compare notes on what angels might or might not be, according to religions that refer to them.