EDITORS COMMENT: This new series is being offered in memoriam of Dr. Michael Heiser who’s truly groundbreaking research on the Divine Council and Enochian Worldview (based on the book of Enoch and its connection to Hebrew theology before and at the time of Jesus) opened the door for a richer understanding of the Life of Christ than previous generations could have imagined. This series reflects content from the leading-edge books published by Defender Publishing for Dr. Heiser—Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ as well as his two volume book set titled, A Companion to the Book of Enoch: A Reader’s Commentary, Volume 1: The Book of the Watchers and Vol II: The Parables of Enoch. PLEASE NOTE: ALL PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF DR. MICHAEL HEISER’S BOOKS FROM SKYWATCHTVSTORE.COM WILL BE DONATED TO HIS FAMILY DURING THIS SERIES.
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is one of the most enigmatic passages in Paul’s letters. Paul’s discussion of women and public worship presents a number of exegetical challenges. With respect to the present study, one specific puzzling element of Paul’s thought will draw our attention—that women should have their heads covered “because of the angels” (1 Corinthians 11:10). Several interpretations have been offered in the long history of scholarship on this phrase and the passage as a whole. This entry will demonstrate that the most sensible alternative is that Paul had the sin of the Watchers and its supernatural reading of Genesis 6:1–4 in view.
Flawed Interpretive Options
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 reads as follows:
2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3But 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. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For 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. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. (ESV)
There are three primary scholarly proposals for what Paul is thinking with respect to his angelic warning. Loren Stuckenbruck, a scholar whose work focuses on the angelology and demonology of the New Testament and Second Temple Judaism, summarizes the options:[i]
- 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”).[ii] An alternative to the human envoy view is that the angeloi were hostile, unbelieving spies in the churches.[iii]
- 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.[iv]
- 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.
There are serious flaws with each of the first three options.
In regard to the first option, while it is true that the Greek word angelos is used in the New Testament of human messengers (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25), the term is not used elsewhere by Paul with this transparent meaning.[v] A greater weakness is the assumption behind the view, drawn from 1 Corinthians 14:23, that these envoys were experienced, spiritually mature believers sent to other churches for the purpose of ministry. Paul’s language in that passage undermines the idea. Paul warns the Corinthians about “outsiders” (Greek: idiotēs, “untrained”) and “unbelievers” (apistoi, “those without faith”) visiting the church, not official envoys sent to minister. As Garland notes, “One is hard put, however, to figure out how a reference to human leaders in the church connects in any way to what Paul says here.”[vi]
The second view is hardly better than the first, as it suffers from internal inconsistency (what does cosmic order have to do with hairstyles?), and a lack of external support in Second Temple Judaism. Stuckenbruck observes:
Unquestionably, Paul is concerned with maintaining distinctions within divine order, both in 11:2–16 and in 1 Corinthians as a whole…. Angels guard this order—here the distinction between man and woman—and, presumably, would take offence at a practice which violates this order as set forth in verses 3 and 8–9. A difficulty with this interpretation is that, surprisingly, there is hardly an instance in early or rabbinic Jewish tradition in which angelic beings are specifically assigned such a role, to say nothing about what such guardian angels would have had to do with the coiffure of women.[vii]
The third view is more promising than the first two, though it also had problems.[viii] This view has been most forcefully put forth by Joseph Fitzmyer. However, he acknowledges: “Though many details about the wearing of the veil in antiquity, both by Jewish and Greek women, have been preserved for us, none of them bears directly on the problem of the church in Corinth. We do not know the exact nature nor the origin of the abuse Paul was trying to handle.”[ix]
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO:
WATCH! DR. HEISER EXPLAINS “REVERSING HERMON”
Several Dead Sea Scrolls appear to speak to Paul’s angelic theology in 1 Corinthians 11:10.[x] These texts describe a role for angels with respect to the ritual purity of the Qumran community. Stuckenbruck summarizes the idea this way:
These Qumran texts, in turn, reflect the belief, more widely attested among the Dead Sea documents, that the community (and, possibly other communities as well) related its self-understanding to the presence of angels in their midst…. Among the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, extant mostly through the Cave 4 manuscripts from Qumran (4Q400–407; see 11Q17 and the Masada manuscript), the community describes the heavenly worship of the angels; the members of this community are said to stand in awe of the privilege they have to participate in this angelic cultus (4Q400 ii, lines 5–7). Angelic worship is thus described as exemplary, and this inspires the human community to declare about the angelic elim: “they are honoured among all the camps of the elohim and revered by human councils.” Clearly, the presence of angels in the community was related, not only to its members’ general sense of well-being but also represented a form of cultic worship that to which the community aspired.[xi]
While I will argue below that Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 does indeed have something to do with creation order and order in the church, this view isolates that connection to liturgy. There is also the assumption that Paul would command Gentile churches to accord with the practices of the Jewish Qumran sect. Stuckenbruck senses this issue and points to a transparent inconsistency and Fitzmyer’s effort to resolve it:
Of course, one glaring difference that comparison reveals is the presence of women in the Christian worshiping community. The Dead Sea documents do not envisage women as full participants in the present, heavenly, or even eschatological cultus. To the extent that Christian men and women, especially those of Jewish descent, fell heir to such traditions, they would have been aware of the new status given to the woman in the post-resurrection era, when circumcision—from which women had been excluded by definition—no longer functioned as a requirement for full admission into the participation in worship…. Paul would have instructed the women of the congregation to cover themselves, in accordance with the woman’s secondary appearance in the order of creation and because her δόξα (“glory”) is different from that given to men. Fitzmyer explains, in analogy to the Dead Sea texts, that the unveiled woman would have been perceived by the angels as a “bodily defect” to be excluded from the assembly. The covering would, then, be a way for compensating for this deficiency, especially so in the presence of holy angels, with whom are associated an exemplary, heavenly, and pure worship of God…. Thus, in 11:10 Paul would be seen to advocate head coverings for women out of respect for the angels with whom the congregations’ members understand themselves to be worshiping God.[xii]
Despite Fitzmyer’s effort, Stuckenbruck points out several difficulties with Fitzmyer’s thesis, namely that:
It presupposes that Paul would have imagined that physical defects are sufficient reason for exclusion from the Christian community, since women are, on argument, being instructed to cover their heads on account of their association with other defects which, according to Leviticus 21:18–23 and the Dead Sea materials, are inadmissible to the cult…. Secondly, and more of a difficulty, the tradition-historical background invoked by Fitzmyer does not directly bear on the presence or activity of women in the religious community…[and that] it relies wholly on analogy and does not help to account for the head covering (and by women!) in and of itself.[xiii]
In other words, Fitzmyer’s view only provides an analogy (in his mind) for “marking” women in a religious community. It never provides an explanation for what “covering the head because of the angels” actually means.
A More Persuasive Alternative
There is a fourth alternative, one that Stuckenbruck considers workable “despite the fact that variations of it have been so categorically dismissed by a number of scholars.”[xiv] This alternative is that Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and his statements about women and their “head covering” in particular harken back to the sin of the Watchers in 1 Enoch. This will no doubt sound strange to many readers. In what follows, I will contend that Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 did indeed have something to do with creation order and order in worship, but that something was informed by the violation of the cosmic order found in Genesis 6:1–4.[xv]
Before turning our attention to what I believe is the key to connecting 1 Corinthians 11 to the transgression of the Watchers, it is worth noting how Stuckenbruck defends an Enochian view. He writes:
Although the wearing of head coverings among men in antiquity was not uncommon, the practice among women carried with it strong sexual connotations. Apparel was, of course, one way of marking the differences—or, better, boundaries—between the sexes, that is, to keep gender categories distinct…. The notion in Graeco-Roman antiquity of female vulnerability and inferiority, assumed in many Jewish sources, and the attendant practice of prophylactic head covering fit well with the early Jewish mythological interpretations of Gen[esis] 6:1–4. With regard to this, NT scholars have customarily focused on the essentially evil character of the angels who “fell” because they were attracted by the beauty of the “human daughters.” This would be much in line with the Book of Watchers of 1 Enoch (see chapters 7–8) and the Book of Giants…. [Paul’s] reasons for commending head coverings are unable to break away from the deep-seated assumption that women constitute the locus where boundaries between different parts of the cosmos are most likely to be violated…. Paul’s reference to the angels betrays a subtle warning that more than just social relationships between men and women are at stake; ultimately, wearing veils is a matter of maintaining the cosmic order. The head coverings are prophylactic in the sense that they protect this order by helping to draw boundaries between distinct, yet sometimes socially overlapping, spheres more clearly. These boundaries, which have structured the universe since creation, are to be respected…. The head coverings also function to keep women distinct from the angels who, for the sake of this argument, are considered an essentially different order of creation.[xvi]
This perspective can be summarized as follows. The covering for women was commended to protect women from sexual scandal in society and supernatural violation by angels. This dual rationale focused on social boundaries and sexual vulnerability, along with the precedent of angelic violation of women in the past.
Bolstering the Argument: Paul’s Vocabulary in Context
The key to demonstrating the coherence of this viewpoint is careful consideration of the vocabulary for the “head covering” in the context of Greco-Roman “scientific” texts widely known in Paul’s day. Once the meaning of the pertinent vocabulary is comprehended in context, it will become clear that, with respect to church order, Paul was concerned with sexual modesty and fidelity, and that the violation of Genesis 6:1–4 never reoccur.
Our discussion of the vocabulary will focus on the Greek word peribolaion. This term and 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 recently received focused attention in a premier scholarly journal for biblical studies. The exchange was launched by New Testament scholar Troy Martin, who put forth a controversial proposal that sounds truly bizarre but that nevertheless has profound explanatory power for this perplexing passage. Martin began his study by drawing attention to verses 13–15, in which we find the crucial Greek term:
Paul’s notorious argument in 1 Cor[inthians] 11:2–16 for the veiling of women in public worship is frequently criticized for being logically convoluted and confused…. While many features of this argument in 1 Cor[inthians] 11:2–16 require explanation, the argument from nature in vv. 13–15 is particularly problematic. The rationale for the natural shame of a man with long hair is obscure (vv. 14–15a). Especially problematic is the statement that a woman’s long hair is given to her instead of a covering (anti peribolaion) in v. 15b. As traditionally understood, this statement nullifies the previous argument that a woman should wear a covering since her long hair apparently serves that purpose. A satisfactory explanation of this argument from nature should resolve the apparent contradiction and enable this argument to support Paul’s contention that women should wear the veil in public worship…. The term peribolaion in v. 15b provides the key for explaining this argument from nature.[xvii]
Martin proceeds to note that scholars have capably produced evidence that peribolaion is a general word that can often be well translated “covering” with reference to some article of clothing. But he quickly adds that “Even though…scholars have identified the dominant semantic domain of this word, the term peribolaion has a much broader semantic range.”[xviii] He then proceeds to unload his controversial thesis:
Since peribolaion is contrasted with hair, which is part of the body, the physiological semantic domain of peribolaion in 1 Cor[inthians] 11:15b becomes particularly relevant. Euripides (Herc fur 1269) uses peribolaion in reference to a body part. He casts Hercules as complaining, “After I received [my] bags of flesh, which are the outward signs of puberty, [I received] labors about which I [shall] undertake to say what is necessary.”… A dynamic translation of the first clause would be: “After I received my testicles (peribolaia), which are the outward signs of puberty.” In this text from Euripides, the term peribolaion refers to a testicle.
What Martin is saying may not be clear due to its peculiarity. He is suggesting that Paul is comparing a woman’s hair to a testicle. This of course sounds like absolute nonsense, but, amazingly, there is no shortage of data to support this understanding of peribolaion. Martin proceeds to comb through Greek medical texts by physicians like Hippocrates, the namesake of the Hippocratic oath all physicians still swear to in modern times. These texts make Martin’s thesis—and its explanatory power—quite clear. Martin lays out the case:
Ancient medical conceptions confirm this association. Hippocratic authors hold that hair is hollow and grows primarily from either male or female reproductive fluid or semen flowing into it and congealing (Hippocrates, Nat puer 20). Since hollow body parts create a vacuum and attract fluid, hair attracts semen…. Hair grows most prolifically from the head because the brain is the place where the semen is (78) produced or at least stored (Hippocrates, Genit. I). Hair grows only on the head of prepubescent humans because semen is stored in the brain and the channels of the body have not yet become large enough for reproductive fluid to travel throughout the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. 2). At puberty, secondary hair growth in the pubic area marks the movement of reproductive fluid from the brain to the rest of the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. I). Women have less body hair not only because they have less semen but also because their colder bodies do not froth the semen throughout their bodies but reduce semen evaporation at the ends of their hair (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20)…. According to these medical authors, men have more hair because they have more semen and their hotter bodies froth this semen more readily throughout their whole bodies (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20). The nature (Greek: phusis) of men is to release or eject the semen…. A man with long hair retains much or all of his semen, and his long hollow hair draws the semen toward his head area but away from his genital area, where it should be ejected. Therefore, 1 Cor[inthians] 11:14 correctly states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair since the male nature (phusis) is to eject rather than retain semen. In contrast, the nature (phusis) of women is to draw up the semen and congeal (79) it into a fetus (Hippocrates, Genit. 5; Nat. puer. 12)…. This conception of hair as part of the female genitalia explains the favorite Hippocratic test for sterility in women. A doctor places a scented suppository in a woman’s uterus and examines her mouth the next day to see if he can smell the scent of the suppository. If he smells the scent, he diagnoses her as fertile. If he does not smell the scent, he concludes she is sterile because the channels connecting her uterus to her head are blocked. The suction power of her hair cannot draw up the semen through the appropriate channels in her body. The male seed is therefore discharged rather than retained, and the woman cannot conceive.[xix]
Martin’s research produced many more examples. These citations should suffice to make the point that, strange as it may sound to our modern ears, the medical knowledge with which Paul and his readers were familiar explicitly associated a woman’s hair with the conceiving of children. In fact, a woman’s hair was the female counterpart to the male testicles when it came to how women became pregnant. The references to a woman’s hair in 1 Corinthians 11 are, consequently, loaded with sexual inference.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 4-PART VIDEO SERIES
WATCH ALL 4 PROGRAMS WITH DR. HEISER ON THE “COMPANION TO THE BOOK OF ENOCH” SERIES!
Understanding and Application
Two questions are now relevant: What’s the interpretive payoff for the passage at hand, and how does this material help us see how Paul linked his discussion of a woman’s hair “given to her instead of a head covering (peribolaion)” to the sin of the Watchers?
Martin answers the first question for his readers:
This ancient physiological conception of hair indicates that Paul’s argument from nature in 1 Cor[inthians] 11:13–5 contrasts long hair in women with testicles in men. Paul states that appropriate to her nature, a woman is not given an external testicle (peribolaion, 1 Cor[inthians] 11:15b) but rather hair instead. Paul states that long hollow hair on a woman’s head is her glory (1 Cor[inthians] 11:15) because it enhances her female nature (phusis), which is to draw in and retain semen. Since female hair is part of the female genitalia, Paul asks the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether it is proper for a woman to display her genitalia when praying to God (1 Cor[inthians] 11:13).
Informed by the Jewish tradition, which strictly forbids display of genitalia when engaged in God s service, Paul’s argument from nature cogently supports a woman’s covering her head when praying or prophesying. In Isa[iah] 6:2, the seraphim who participate in the divine liturgy have six wings. Two are for flying, two cover the face for reverence, and two cover the feet for modesty. The term feet euphemistically refers to the genitals of the seraphim.[xx] The priests in Yahweh’s service receive special instructions for approaching the altar so that their nakedness is not exposed (Exod[us] 20:26). As a further precaution when entering the tent of meeting or approaching the altar, these priests wear “linen breeches from the loins to the thighs to cover their naked flesh” (Exod[us] 28:42–43 RSV). Again, “flesh,” a euphemism, refers to the genitals (Lev[iticus] 15:2, 19; Ezek[iel] 16:26; 23:20). These breeches are for the glory and beauty of the priest (Exod[us] 28:40), while exposure of the genitals subjects the priest to guilt and death (Exod[us] 28:43).
Informed by this tradition, Paul appropriately instructs women in the service of God to cover their hair since it is part of the female genitalia. According to Paul’s argument, women may pray or prophesy in public worship along with men but only when both are decently attired. Even though no contemporary person would agree with the physiological conceptions informing Paul’s argument from nature for the veiling of women, everyone would agree with his conclusion prohibiting the display of genitalia in public worship. Since the physiological conceptions of the body have changed, however, no physiological reason remains for continuing the practice of covering women’s heads in public worship, and many Christian communities reasonably abandon this practice.[xxi]
In summary form, the issue for Paul with respect to the practice of women and their head coverings is sexual modesty and propriety for worship. This takes us back to our earlier discussion about order in the church being a possible explanation for the phrase “because of the angels.” Paul truly does have proper order in worship in mind, but his rationale isn’t that angels are watching to make sure church liturgy is done correctly.
This brings us to the second question relative to how we apply all this: How is this connected to the sin of the Watchers? I would guess the answer to this second question is now fairly obvious. Paul isn’t merely concerned with church order. He’s concerned about cosmic boundaries.
The sexual nature of a woman’s natural head covering, her hair, makes covering the hair in church worship completely understandable. But Paul had an additional concern. He wrote: “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (1 Cor[inthians] 11:8–10).
Paul wanted women to have their hair covered as a sign that they were sexually taken, that they belonged to a man, their husbands. Why? Because of the angels. Apparently, Paul was concerned that if women didn’t show this sign of sexual fidelity and “ownership,” a woman could be at risk of sexual violation by angels. After all, it had happened before (Gen[esis] 6:1–4). Paul didn’t want to see such a violation of cosmic order happen again.
The last two chapters of our present study have introduced us to how the sin of the Watchers, the fallen sons of God of Genesis 6:1–4, lurked in the back of Paul’s mind in his letters to the Galatians and the Corinthians. But Paul wasn’t alone in this regard. As we’ll see next, the apostle Peter was also influenced by 1 Enoch’s story of divine transgression.
UP NEXT: The Sin of the Watchers and Baptism
[i] Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Why Should Women Cover Their Heads Because of Angels?” Stone-Campbell Journal 4 (2001): 205–234.
[ii] Stuckenbruck notes that this view is preferred by: J. B. Lightfoot, Home Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859) 4:238; A. Padget, “Paul on Women in Church: The Contradiction of Coiffure in 1 Cor 11:2-16?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20 (1984): 69-86; and J. Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Once Again,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 268–269. The ancient church father Ambrosiaster also took this view (“The veil signifies power, and the angels are bishops”; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 81.3:122).
[iii] B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 133–138. The notion that the angeloi are hostile spies is not harmed by the criticisms of this view that follow. It’s lethal weakness is that the supporting context—the rest of what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:2–16—does not fit the idea of human spies. As this chapter will demonstrate, the full content of Paul’s teaching makes the fourth option, that Paul has the transgression of the Watchers in mind, the most likely.
[iv] As Stuckenbruck notes (222), this view is put forth by James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1947), 152, and Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987) 69.
[v] The angels of the seven churches in Rev. 2–3 are another possible reference to humans, though this is much disputed.
[vi] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003) 526.
[vii] Stuckenbruck, 222–223.
[viii] Joseph Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology in 1 Cor. 11:10,” in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (ed. Joseph A. Fitzmyer; Grand Rapids, MI; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) 187–201. See also H. J. Cadbury, “A Qumran Parallel to Paul,” Harvard Theological Review 51 (1958) 1–2. See the remainder of this chapter in the present work for a coherent resolution to the passage.
[ix] Fitzmyer, 188, note 1.
[x] Fitzmyer’s article and subsequent postscripts list the following as being relevant: lQWar Rule vii, line 6; lQSa=Rule of the Congregation ii, lines 8-9; 4QFlorilegium fragment 1 i, lines 3-4; CD=Damascus Document xv, lines 15–17; 4Q491=4QWar Rule fragments 1-3, line 10; 4QD=Damascus Document fr. 8 i, lines 6–9;
[xi] Stuckenbruck, 224–225. The word “cult” in scholarly discussion refers to liturgy and ritual—religious ceremony.
[xii] Ibid., 225–226.
[xiii] Ibid., 226–227.
[xiv] Ibid., 227.
[xv] Tertullian is an example of an early church leader who made this same connection: “It is on account of the angels, he says, that the woman’s head is to be covered, because the angels revolted from God on account of the daughters of men” (On Prayer 22.5).
[xvi] Stuckenbruck, 228–230. Stuckenbruck marshals a number of primary sources in the course of articulating his defense of an Enochian connection on these grounds.
[xvii] Troy W. Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Cor. 11:13–15: A Testicle instead of a Head Covering,” JBL 123:1 (2004): 75–8 (see 75–76). Martin’s thesis was contested by a subsequent essay: Mark Goodacre, “Does περιβολαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Cor. 11:15?” JBL 130:2 (2011): 391–396. Martin then produced a thorough response to Goodacre in defense of his original essay: Troy W. Martin, “Περιβολαιον as ‘Testicle’ in 1 Cor. 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre,” JBL 132:2 (2013) 453–465.
[xviii] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature,” 76–77.
[xix] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature,” 78–80. The text for the Hippocratic test for sterility is Hippocrates, Aph. 5.59.
[xx] On the term “feet” as a euphemism for genitalia in the Hebrew Bible, see Marvin H. Pope, “Bible, Euphemism and Dysphemism,” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (vol. I; ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 720–725; E. Ullendorff, “The Bawdy Bible,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42 (1949): 425–456.
[xxi] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature,” 83–84.
[xxii] Material in this chapter is drawn from the author’s book, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Lexham Press, 2015) 335–339. Overlaps in prose content from that book are presented here by permission.