It is nearly universally stated that Paul is comparing a woman without a head-covering (in church) to a a woman with a shaved head (presumably a prostitute). It thus seems that Paul is being exceedingly nasty, in that he is saying that the uncovered woman in church is just the same as (one and the same) a loose woman. It even sounds like he is saying, she may as well, go and be a prostitute as to come to church uncovered.

I wish to contend that Paul is saying no such thing. I contend that his point of comparison of the shaved woman is not to the uncovered woman at all, but rather it is to the state of being dishonoured. It is not the woman who is “one and the same” but it is the state of being dishonoured that is “one and the same”.

However, before I look at the text, I wish to consider a practical reason which would cast doubt on the traditional interpretation.

It is very possible that women with shaven heads came to church. The first possible scenario is that of the slave woman. It was a practice for some slave women to be shaven by their masters. If so, such a slave women if she was to come to church, would have no option but to be shaven.

[As a side point, some commentators also argue that Paul is also making a theological statement in v…… about men and long hair. I similarly, wish to contend that this also is not the case. His comment is simply about the men’s hair length in terms of fashion. Long hair on a man is not very flattering. It should be remembered that Paul himself probably had long hair for a time, and that at Corinth, for he undertook a Nazarite vow. Paul could hardly be saying that long hair on a main is dishonouring God. Though he could easily be saying from experience that long hair on a man does not look very good, especially when you compare it to how it looks on a woman “it is her glory …. it is like an adornment”.)

…….