1 Corinthians 14, is a woman’s voice filthy?
Sep 19th, 2008 by Cheryl Schatz
In the last post we talked about how there is no “law” in the Old Testament scriptures that forced women to be silent in the assembly so the reference in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 had to be some other “law” that forced silence on women. The “law” that silences women is found not in God’s law, but in the oral tradition of the Jews, now written down in the Talmud.
The next red flag that points to another source other than God’s law, for the saying in verses 34 & 35 is the charge that a woman’s voice is filthy. Verse 35 says:
1 Corinthians 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home;for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
The word translated as “improper” is shameful or filthy. Is a woman’s voice shameful? Is a woman’s voice filthy? The oral law of the Jews said her voice was indecent, filthy and shameful. A woman was not allowed to speak in their congregations for the sake of the men. Her voice was considered a sexual enticement thus a woman was not to speak publicly.
Did God’s word also say anywhere that a woman’s voice is filthy, shameful or indecent as the Jewish oral tradition taught? No, it doesn’t. In fact Paul earlier on in chapter 14 said that everyone was allowed to prophesy in the assembly. If everyone could prophesy, then certainly Paul would not turn around in just a few verses and say that women’s voices were to be silenced because they were filthy.
Tradition is a very strong force in people’s lives. Prejudice follows such tradition and causes many of us not to want to hear a woman’s voice speaking the truth of God’s word. Instead of following tradition, we should see what God’s word says about women publishing the truth.
Psalms 68:11 The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host.
The word “proclaim” means to publish or make public. God says that there is a great host of women who will take the gospel to the public.
How about you? Have you had any prejudice against women’s speaking forth the Bible? Have you considered their words to be inferior in some way or their preaching to be invalid merely because they are women?
The Greek aischron is a very strong word, it is euphemized in most English translations.
Eph 5:11
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
Eph 5:12
For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
1Co 11:6
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.
These are indications that in BOTH these cases the words in 1 Cor are not from Paul, would he call a believing woman filty? I do not believe it.
Good point about Ephesians 5:11, 12. The shame and filthiness is clear in the Greek regarding the works of darkness.
I am curious why you believe that 1 Corinthians 11:6 is not Paul? There is a little word translated “if” that changes the meaning from a certainty to an if/then statement.
I see a distinct difference in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 because verse 36 is a contradiction of the previous verses. But what about 1 Cor. 11? If 1 Cor. 11:6 is not Paul but a quote from the Corinthians where do you stop the quotation from the Corinthians? And what is in the passage that shows the change from the Corinthians to Paul?
I believe that 1 Cor. 11 can be read in context without Paul’s demanding women to veil. But I am interested in your take how you divide the passage between Paul and the Corinthian quote.
‘morning Cheryl,
I too believe Paul is quoting the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11:4-6. Although there is no explicit “he” afterwards, I believe the Corinthians are presenting the problem the Christian women were facing, concerning the impossible position they were in regarding head coverings. To uncover was to indicate loose morals, yet to cover was to shame Jesus who paid for their sins. Here’s how I see it:
The passage just seems to flow much more smoothly with that being a quote Paul is responding to. He told them not to cover in worship as had been the Jewish practice signifying guilt before God, since Jesus took that away. But if women did not cover their heads, they would incur the wrath of society and their husbands, since only “bad” women didn’t cover at that time. They were between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
So that’s their question (indented and italic), and Paul’s answer is first of all to explain that women are the glory of men and therefore should not be covered. Yet neither could society be instantly overturned. So Paul’s solution is to let the women themselves decide, since it’s literally their “heads” that are on the line.
I also included the verses about long hair. Most translations render it backwards (the ISV is the exception). It isn’t even a question in the Greek, but a statement of fact: nature tells us nothing about hair length since both men and women can grow it long.
I tried to put lines to mark the scripture quote but it didn’t take it. It starts with “now I want you to understand” and ends with “any such custom”.
I fixed it and put the whole part in quotes. Let me know if this isn’t what you were trying to do.
In my next post I think I will make it quite clear why I do not think Paul is quoting the Corinthians here. I do believe he is writing about head coverings because they had questions that they brought to Paul in their letter. However if this is a quote from the Corinthians in chapter 11, it is unlike every other quote that Paul put into his response back to the Corinthians.
Can we look at this passage and see it as Paul writing and not the Corinthians? I see no reason not to see that. Would Paul have said that it is disgraceful for a man to pray with his head covered? Yes, that is what he taught. Likely those influenced by the Judaizers would not agree with Paul since it was their custom to cover their heads while praying. So if the letter had questions or statement influenced by the Judaizers, this is unlikely to be a quote from the Corinthians.
Also could it reasonably be Paul stating that the custom dictated that women whose head was uncovered in public prayer was disgraceful (or filthy)? Yes. That was the custom and Paul certainly would have been sympathetic to the married women’s dilemma.
Also Paul makes reference to having the hair cut and/or having the hair shaved off. Would he give a woman the choice to cover her head if she was shamed by having her head shaved? A woman making a Nazirite vow would have her head shaved and would Paul force her to be in public bald or would he allow her to cover for personal shame (not for spiritual shame of her sin)? It appears that Paul allows women to cover (for personal shame) or to uncover as the power for that decision is in their hands.
More on this in the next post
I don’t seem to have gotten the main point across.
Whether it’s an actual verbatim quote or not, Paul is presenting a dilemma for which the Corinthians need an answer. He explains why a woman should not cover, but also recognizes why she may have to cover anyway. So he presents the problem, then the “theology” behind the problem, then leaves the final decision up to the women. He emphasizes this by saying “we have no such custom”, that is, we have no church-wide ruling.
Paula,
I agree that Paul is answering a question of the Corinthians regarding the length of hair and head coverings, etc.
I just do not think that this is one place that is a direct quote (false tradition) presented by the Corinthians and then directly refuted by Paul. I believe that Paul is refusing to allow men to follow the Jewish oral law that demands that men cover their heads when they pray but he is leaving the decision for women to the women’s own authority to make a decision as her head covering presented a huge dilemma for married women because of the culture of that day.
This passage has been a difficult one for many because the translators typically have put their own interpretation into the passage by adding words that are not in the original text. These added words change the original meaning and make the passage almost impossible to properly interpret. It is only when we discard the added words that Paul’s meaning becomes much more obvious.
I should add that just as Paula said, the passage has a question mark regarding the length of hair instead of a period. This turns Paul’s comment into an affirmation instead of a statement refuting the cultural standards for hair as if they are God’s standards.
I see 1 Cor 11:4-6 as a quote from Corinth. So does Bruce Fleming.
Don,
Do you see these verses as something that Paul is agreeing with or disagreeing with? Also why do you not also consider verse 7 as a quote from Corinth?