Head Covering: Bushnell View

The Bushnell view is an informal label for the view that in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul does not command women to cover their heads, but discourages it. In this view, Paul allows women to cover if neccessary for their husband's sake, but forbids covering otherwise. The same conclusion is found by John Lightfoot and William Welty. The original and in depth view can be found in God's Word to Women by Katherine Bushnell, lessons 29-35.

The foundation of this view is not of interpretation, but translation. Most of the translation error is because Koine Greek has no puncuation, thus it does not clearly show quotations, the ending of sentences, and questions. All of these are put in place by the translator.

Problems with Traditional Translation

When using the traditional translation, several problems and contradictions arise. For these reasons alone we must interpret that Paul is not commanding the covering of women. Bushnell's view eliminates all these problems.

Verse 4, "Dishonors his Head"

If a man dishonors his Head, Christ, by covering it, then woman, whose Head is Christ also, would dishonor her Head, Christ, by covering it. This implies women should uncover.

Verse 7, "Image of God"

If a man should uncover because he is in the image of God, then woman, who is in the image of God, should uncover also. This implies women should uncover.

Verse 10, "Because of the Angels"

The first problem is discovering what is meant in verse 10 by "because of the angels." Scholars seem to agree there is no obvious interpretation.

Verse 10, "Must have Authority"

Paul commands women to have authority on their head. What is the "authority?" By context, it can only possibly be a head covering, or a lack of a head covering. By reasoning, a head covering is not a sign of authority; Paul forbids the men from covering because their covering a sign of sin, which makes slaves of its owners. Thus Paul must be ordering women to uncover as a sign of their authority.

Verses 11, 12, "Man and Woman United"

These verses say that man and woman are together. Why would Paul include this in a passage where he treats men and women differently? The verses are an arguement that the same rule applies to women as to men, implying that women should unveil as well.

Verse 13, "Judge for Yourselves

Paul write the lengthy letter of 1 Corinthians mostly to teach and correct. The Corinthian church is divisive, arrogant (1 Cor 4:18), houses a sexually immoral man (5:1), and Paul implies they are at least tempted by prostitution (6:16). This is not a group Paul would trust to make their own conclusions concerning women ("judge for yourselves"). Moreover, he would not write this passage instructing them on covering if he later told them to decide for themselves.

Verse 14, Nature's Teaching

An honest attempt to answer Paul's question, "Does nature teach . . ." will yield an undeniable "No." It is not a shame for man to have long hair; the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:5) certainly deny this. If anything, Nature teaches that everyone should have long hair, because, left on its own, anyone's hair will grow long.

Verse 16, "No such Custom"

Paul denies that neither he nor other churches have "such custom." What custom is he refering to? It must be the custom of covering, for no other custom is mentioned. Thus he has contradicted himself, or at least, the view that he is commanding covering.

The Contemporary view

Interpreting the passage as cultural and temporary brings the problemm that much of Paul's evidence is not cultural, but theological. Things like man and woman being binded together, the woman being created for man, and nature are not temporary but eternal. If Paul uses eternal arguements, his conclusion must be eternal.

Translation

The American Standard Version translates relatively the same as all other well known translations. The following compares this with Bushnell's translation and explains her reasons. Only explanations for the more important differences are explained. Read God's Word to Women Lesson 32 and Lesson 33 for complete explanations.

Translation Comparison

Note that Bushnell's words within brackets [ ] are intended as aided interpretation. If a reader where comfortable with her translation and interpretation, these thoughts would occur mentally while reading. They are not intended as insertions to the text; that is, if it were published within a complete translation of the Bible, they would be removed or used only in footnotes. Note also that the many minor differences between the texts are simply the result of different paths of translation. Ideally, a comparison would be made between the Revised Standard Version which Bushnell usually used herself and probably used to aid her in this translation.

	Traditional Translation (ASV)	Bushnell Translation
(3)	But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.	But I wish you to understand that of every [Christian] man Christ is the Head; but of a wife the husband is a head [also]; and God is Christ's Head.
(4)	Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.	Any [Christian] man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [as is required among the Jews, in sign of guilt and condemnation] dishonors his Head [Christ, who has atoned for all his sins].
(5)	But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn:	But any wife praying or prophesying bareheaded dishonors her [other] head [her husband], for it would be one and the same thing as [having] her head shaved.
(6)	but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.	For [Jewish law provides that] if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn. Now if it would bring disgrace to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
(7)	For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.	For a [Christian] man ought not to veil the head because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is [also] the glory of man.
(8)	For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:	For man is not originally from woman [as from a despised and inferior source], but woman is from man.
(9)	for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:	Nor was the man created for the woman [to help her], but the woman for the man [to help him].
(10)	for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.	For this [additional] cause ought the woman to have authority over her head [to unveil it] because of her angels [who always behold God's face].
(11)	Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.	Nevertheless, in the Lord, [i.e. among believers,] the woman is not [to be legislated for] apart from the man, nor the man from the woman.
(12)	For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.	For just as woman came out of man, so is man [born into the world] through woman and all Christians born of God. Judge of this matter among yourselves.
(13)	Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?	It is proper for a woman [at least] to pray unto God unveiled.
(14)	Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?	Nor is there anything in the nature of hair itself that teaches you that if a man wear it long it is a dishonor to him, while if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her, for her hair has been given her instead of a veil.
(15)	But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
(16)	But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.	But if anyone thinks to be contentious [in defense of such a custom as either men or women veiling for worship], let him know that "we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God."

See Also

Rethinking the Veil William Welty agrees with Bushnell; in pdf format.