I recently put out a book with a provocative (but not entirely novel) thesis about Paul’s endlessly controversial discussion regarding hair and head coverings. I’ve called the book Razing Hair: A Sarcastic Reimagining of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16—a multi-layered pun that attempts to work on several levels of meaning. Rather than wade into decades, perhaps centuries, of factional crossfire (feminist, egalitarian, and complementarian shrapnel included), I follow a clue Luke drops in Acts 18:18 and argue that most of Paul’s words in these verses represent the exhausted, razor-sharp peak of his sarcasm toward a church hopelessly fixated, like Narcissus and Aphrodite staring into their own reflections, on outward appearances. In fact, the statue of the goddess Aphrodite, whose cult dominated life in the city of Corinth from the Acropolis above the city, depicted her admiring herself in the reflection of a shield.[1] Indeed, these people looked through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13:12)! We’ve been reading Paul wrong—something the Corinthians, who knew what he looked like, could never have missed.
This article distills that argument by tracing the clue in Paul’s haircut (Acts 18:18), exposing the contradiction it creates, cataloging his sarcastic arsenal throughout the letter, and showing how 1 Corinthians 11:2 launches the ironic climax of his critique before rebuilding on the two unshakable theological pillars that point us beyond vanity to love (11:3, 11–12).
The Clue in the Haircut
Acts 18:18 is a verse rarely considered for its potential interpretive clarifying power in the head-covering debates of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. We read,
After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.
The most basic question when I read this verse is, why in the world do I need to know that Paul went to a barber? It has to have some kind of importance to Luke. What could it be?
The verse itself gives two clues. First, Paul had undertaken a vow for some reason, and this vow is directly related to his haircut. In fact, we learn about a vow in the Old Testament that exactly fits the bill: the Nazarite vow (Num 6:1–21) that made Samson so famous (Jdg 13:5). When a Nazarite takes the vow, God forbids him from touching three things: anything from the grapevine (Num 6:3–4), a dead body (6:6–7), and his hair (6:5).
The second clue is that Paul got his haircut at the port city of Cenchreae. The location of this port is critical to our question. It is the eastern port that opened up to the Aegean side of the Mediterranean Sea from the city of Corinth. Indeed, Paul has spent the last 18 months in Corinth (Ac 18:11), and now he is finally leaving the city.[2]
A Contradiction Too Big to Ignore
Only a handful of commentators have noticed just how central Acts 18:18 is to the entire discussion of head coverings.[3] Recall one of the most discussed verses in the Corinthian letter: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?” (1 Cor 11:14) On any kind of serious reading of this verse, whether one sees in it a transcendent moral code or some non-transcendent cultural taboo held by the Corinthians, Paul is making an absolute claim that long hair on a man is a disgrace. Most have read it just this way.
So what’s the problem? Paul had long hair throughout the entire time he lived among the Corinthians. He only cut it after leaving the city, at the port of Cenchreae (Ac 18:18). By the time he wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus (a couple of years later), the Corinthians still remembered exactly what he looked like with long hair. Paul himself had lived among them with long hair even though he tells them that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair.
In the book, I suggest that Paul had quickly realized the kind of people he was dealing with in this city. He likely decided that he needed to give them a little extra prodding about what true holiness looked like in contrast to their hypocritical and feigned external appearances. In this part of the letter, echoes of the three elements of the Nazarite vow appear: separation from what is “dead” (specifically, sacrifices offered to lifeless idols (1 Cor 8:4–13; 10:14–22), long hair (11:2–16), and the proper use of wine at the Lord’s Table (11:17–34). Whether intentional or not, the clustering is striking.
After reading the book, my friend Christopher Kou suggested another possible reason for the vow Paul took: It began two or three years earlier when Paul first set out on his second missionary journey (Ac 15:36–41). Perhaps he undertook the vow as though he was entering into holy war and saw his sacred mission to the Gentiles as something akin to David’s men fleeing Saul (1 Sam 21:5; Matt 12:3–4) or Samson delivering Israel from the hand of the Philistines (Jdg 13:5), or the Levites who are separated as holy (though there is no indication that the Levites were under this vow; see Num 31:6). If this is true, then Paul’s hair hadn’t been cut in a very long time. But even if it is shorter growth of just a handful of months, there is no question that the taboos of Corinth would have been spoiled by Paul’s vow and they would have felt the sting of Paul’s words—words lost on us because we haven’t put the pieces together that Paul himself had lived among them with long hair even though he tells them that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair.
This can only mean one thing for interpreting this verse. Paul is being sarcastic. He has to be. There’s no other plausible way of explaining him saying that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair when he himself had had long hair! But dare we imagine Paul wielding rhetoric so cutting that it would leave sentimental evangelicals red-faced with embarrassment or furious with righteous indignation?
Paul’s Sarcastic Arsenal
Paul’s use of sarcasm is most pervasive in Galatians and Corinthians.[4] Scholars have proposed a staggering range of verses where Paul may be sarcastic. In 1 Corinthians alone, these include: 1:5[5]; 3:9b,[6] 16,[7] 21b–22[8]; 4:5a,[9] 6b, 7b, c, 8, 10, 14, 16[10]; 6:2, 4, 5[11]; 7:40;[12] 8:2, 8[13]; 10:15[14]; 11:2,[15] 18,[16] 21,[17] 22[18]; 12:2,[19] 13,[20] 31[21]; 14:4,[22] 14,[23] 17,[24] 36,[25] 38[26]; 15:12,[27] 35.[28] In this article we will not consider whether or not these are all sarcastic. The point is, that’s a lot of potential sarcasm!
Perhaps the most obvious verse in this book that screams sarcasm is 1 Corinthians 4:8, as nearly all commentators recognize. “Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!” Paul piles on the exaggerated praise in rapid succession: “already filled,” “already rich,” “already kings”—each “already” (ἤδη) is dripping with irony. He’s exposing their self-satisfied, over-realized eschatology.
The Jarring Commendation
In fact, while there are occasional moments of tenderness in the letter, from beginning to end Paul is addressing problem after problem after problem with virtually nothing positive to say about the Corinthian church. Chapters 1–4 deal with factionalism, boasting in human leaders, over-realized eschatology, arrogance, immaturity, worldly wisdom, and self-exaltation. In Chapter 5, he has to address incest in the church. Chapter 6 moves to lawsuits among them and sexual immorality justified by slogans such as “all things are lawful.” Chapters 7–10 raises questions about marriage, idol meat and temple participation, self-indulgence, and overconfidence. Beginning in 11:17, we discover that the Lord’s Supper has been turned into a status display. Chapters 12–14 are all about the misuse of spiritual gifts, chaos in worship, lovelessness, and disorder. In Chapter 15, some are denying the resurrection. Chapter 16 finishes the letter with brief practical instructions and greetings with no extended praise. In other words, outside of 11:2–16, the letter is a sustained diagnosis of pride, division, moral failure, liturgical disorder, and theological confusion.
That leaves only 11:2–16—our passage—as perhaps the one outlier in the entire letter. Why do people read it this way? It’s because of verse 2: “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” When you compare this with verse 17’s, “But in the following instructions I do not commend you…” it seems as if verses 2–16 really are Paul finally saying something good about these people.
But is he? The whiplash feeling is real. If Paul were genuinely commending them for getting something right (i.e., head coverings, hair, and propriety), why would he immediately pivot back to rebuke in the very next breath—and stay in rebuke mode for the rest of the letter, even as he has in the entire letter up to this moment? It strains credulity to read verse 2 as a sincere oasis of approval sandwiched between two deserts of correction.
On the surface, verse 2 looks like genuine praise. But when you zoom out to the letter’s structure, tone, and sequel (2 Corinthians), the statement becomes so jarring that several commentators have suggested that it is in fact ironic or sarcastic.[29] In fact, commentators have noted several of the verses in this section, including 2 and 5, and potentially 14 and 15, as sarcastic; I’m hardly the first to notice this.[30]
Sarcasm in the Greek Toolbox
But would Paul really speak like this? Yes, especially if he thought that such rhetoric would have the intended effect upon this particular group of people. The point here is not that Paul is being sarcastic to be a jerk (sarcasm can certainly be a weapon to harm), but that he is using it to correct their obviously absurd beliefs. In fact, sarcasm was a tool found in the belts of many Greek poets and philosophers with whom Paul was familiar.[31]
The one that especially comes to mind is Aristophanes’ Birds, a biting satire about Athenians fleeing their corrupt, litigious city to build a utopian “Cloudcuckooland” in the sky, blockading the gods, and ultimately forcing Zeus to surrender power. Intriguingly, the play’s general movement echoes Paul’s first letter to Corinth: fleeing a corrupt city filled with factions, lawsuits, and corruption (chs. 1, 5–6), negotiating a “higher” realm (gifts, tongues, prophecy in chs. 12–14), building an over-realized “kingdom” (“already kings” and “already filled,” 4:8), and more. The idea isn’t that Paul copies Birds (there’s no direct allusion) but that its subversive archetype may have shaped his sustained sarcastic rhetoric—redirecting this church from their self-built utopia to the true kingdom under Christ. Even if Paul didn’t consciously draw from Birds, the thematic resonance is striking.
The Two Pillars That Stand
All this rhetorical context makes it easier to see how Paul might employ sarcasm in 11:2–16. Paul is serious in only two places in this passage; namely, the theological pillars upon which he will erect his sarcastic building to expose the Corinthian absurdity. The first is verse 3: “But 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.” The second is verses 11–12: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”
Why these two statements and not the rest? First, they are the only parts of the passage that are unambiguously positive and theologically constructive. Everything else either creates logical tension with Paul’s known behavior (long hair), appeals to questionable cultural assumptions (“nature,” v. 14), or introduces odd ideas (angels, v. 10) that fit better as mockery of Corinthian superstition than as sober apostolic instruction.
Second, these two verses stand out because they align perfectly with Paul’s core theology elsewhere in his letters. The headship structure of verse 3 is consistent with his broader teaching on authority under Christ (see Eph 5:23; Col 1:18), while verses 11–12 echo his emphasis on mutual dependence and equality “in the Lord” (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 7:4; 12:12–27). They function as the stable foundation from which Paul can safely dismantle the Corinthians’ vain obsessions.
Third, and most important, the surrounding material collapses into absurdity when read straight. If Paul is not being sarcastic, then he is simultaneously commending the Corinthians (v. 2) right after spending the entire letter rebuking them, insisting long hair is a “disgrace” for men while he himself had just lived among them with long hair, and arguing that hair length is theologically significant while the rest of his ministry shows little interest in such externals. These tensions disappear when we read the rest of the passage as razor-sharp irony aimed at their mirror-gazing, Aphrodite-shaped vanity. The two pillars, by contrast, are the unshakable truths that remain once the sarcasm has razed their superficial scaffolding.
Almost everything else can be read as sarcasm addressing Corinthian attitudes that undermines these two pillars:
- Obsession with head coverings and “dishonoring the head” (vv. 4–7), when the true head is Christ and God, whom they have dishonored throughout the letter.
- Obsession with hair length and its theological justification (vv. 13–15), when their real issue is dishonoring Christ by how they treat one another over these very externals.
- Superstitious belief that a veil will protect against lustful angels (v. 10), as if a scrap of cloth could ward off Zeus-like powers when their true protector is God alone.
And so on.
Mocking the Mirror-Gazers
In the end, Paul’s razor-sharp sarcasm in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is not an outburst of apostolic frustration; it is surgical love. He has spent the entire letter exposing the Corinthians’ obsession with externals like factions, eloquence, lawsuits, gifts, status, hair, and veils while their hearts remain untouched by the gospel’s deeper demands. The Nazirite vow (Ac 18:18), with Paul’s long hair standing right in their midst, was no accident. It was a living rebuke, a walking sermon that true holiness is not measured by cultural taboos or polished appearances but by separation to God and love for one another.
When Paul finally says, “Now I commend you…” (11:2), he is reaching the exhausted peak of his irony, mock-congratulating them for “remembering” him and “maintaining traditions” precisely because the entire letter screams that they have done neither.
The pillars stand firm: Christ is head of every man, God is head of Christ (v. 3); in the Lord, neither man nor woman is independent of the other, and all things are from God (vv. 11–12). Everything else in 11:2–16 is Paul’s sarcasm, berating the scaffolding of their vanity—a scaffolding built on outward appearances, cultural taboos, and superficial piety—which collapses under its own weight when measured against these two unshakable truths.
The Corinthians stared into their own mirrors, Narcissus-like, primping over hair and veils while Aphrodite’s statue gazed at her reflection atop the Acropolis. Paul held up a cracked mirror instead: “We see through a glass darkly” (13:12). What they saw as glory was vanity; what they called “nature” was culture; what they thought was piety was pride. And the antidote? Not better coverings, but love. The kind that is patient, kind, not arrogant or rude, that does not insist on its own way (13:4–7). Love that matures beyond childish squabbles over externals and grows into the full stature of Christ.
From Vanity to Love
The next time you read 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, do not rush to take sides in the culture-war trenches. Ask instead, “Am I building a Cloudcuckooland of my own, little utopian cities of propriety, status, or “correct” worship while neglecting the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and love?” Paul’s sarcasm was not cruelty; it was a father’s desperate plea for his children to grow up. May we hear it, laugh at our own vanity, and then finally put away childish things.
Douglas Van Dorn (M.Div. Denver Seminary) is the author or editor of over twenty books including The Angel of the LORD; Christ in the Old Testament; Five Solas of the Reformation; Covenant Theology; Rings of Revelation; and Waters of Creation: A Biblical Theology of Baptism. Doug has pastored the Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado since 2002. He helped start the Reformed Baptist Network and has served on boards of two associations of churches. He has co-hosted the radio show Journey’s End in 2011-12; the Peeranormal Podcast with Dr. Michael Heiser (2016-21), the Iron and Myth Podcast, Giant Steps, and the Reformed Fringe, and has been a guest on numerous shows. He has been married since 1994 and has four girls. Doug has climbed all 54 of Colorado’s 14,000 ft. mountains we well as Mt. Rainier in Washington and Mt. Shasta in California and is an avid golfer and bicyclist.
NOTES
[1] Douglas J. Moo et al., Romans to Philemon, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Zondervan, 2019), 3.169.
[2] Map courtesy of Jesus Walk, https://www.jesuswalk.com/paul/06_greece.htm.
[3] I searched about 200 commentaries and monographs plus my full Logos library of over 42,000 books looking for “Acts 18:18” near “1 Cor 11:14” and the results turned up only three hits, each of which points out the problem, though none seem to realize just how serious a contradiction this generates on a standard reading. See Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1987), 527; Alan Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Cor 11:2–16,” JSNT 20 (1984): 74; Kenneth T. Wilson, “Should Women Wear Headcoverings?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 592 (1991): 457–458.
[4] See Matthew Pawlak, Sarcasm in Paul’s Letters (Cambridge University Press, 2023).
[5] William Baker, “1 Corinthians,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 15 (Tyndale, 2009), 25.
[6] Robert Nash, 1 Corinthians (Smith & Helwys, 2009), 110.
[7] Paul Ellingworth and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (United Bible Societies, 1994), 96.
[8] Grant R. Osborne, 1 & 2 Corinthians (Tyndale, 1999), 63.
[9] John Edgar McFadyen, The Epistles to the Corinthians with Notes and Comments (Hodder & Stoughton, 1911), 74.
[10] Alan F.. Johnson, 1 Corinthians (IVP, 2004), 94.
[11] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed. (Eerdmans, 2014), 251.
[12] D. Brown, 1 Corinthians (2026), 1 Cor 7:25–40.
[13] Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (Baker, 2011), 174, 180, 233.
[14] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians (Tyndale, 2018), 209–210.
[15] Robert Utley, Paul’s Letters to a Troubled Church: 1 & II Corinthians (2013), 125.
[16] Soards, 1 Corinthians, 233.
[17] Brown, 1 Corinthians, 1 Cor 10–17.
[18] Peter Naylor, A Study Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Evangelical Press, 2004).
[19] Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Fortress, 1975), 195.
[20] Soards, 1 Corinthians, 253.
[21] E. A. Judge, “Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents,” Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984): 15–23.
[22] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker, 2003), 602
[23] Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 10–16, 2nd ed. (SIL International, 2008), 197; 215.
[24] Soards, 1 Corinthians, 288.
[25] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 666–667.
[26] H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Excel, eds., The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Corinthians (Funk & Wagnalls, 1909), 473
[27] Jack H. Wilson, “The Corinthians Who Say There Is No Resurrection of the Dead.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59, no. 1 (Jan 1968): 90.
[28] Ronald J. Sider, “St. Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:1–19,” Novum Testamentum 19, no. 1 (1977): 131.
[29] See, e.g., Utley, Paul’s Letters to a Troubled Church, 125; James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Harper & Brothers, 1938), 148–149; J. C. Hurd Jr., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (Seabury, 1965), 182–185; Ernest Evans, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Clarendon Press, 1930), 117.
[30] On verses 2 and 5, see Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (Liturgical Press, 1999), 409. On verses 14–15, see Timothy A. Brookins, Ancient Rhetoric and the Style of Paul’s Letters: A Reference Book (Cascade Books, 2022), 3.2.1.2.4. In the broader context, additional sarcastic verses may include verse 18 (noted by Soards, 1 Corinthians, 233; Osborne, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 413), verse 19 (Brown, 1 Cor 1:10-17), verse 21 (Naylor, Study Commentary, 292), and verse 22 (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 195).
[31] Paul cites or alludes to Greek poets elsewhere: Aratus, Phaenomena, line 5 in Acts 17:28; Epimenides, Cretica in Titus 1:12; and Menander, Thais, Frag. 218, in 1 Corinthians 15:33, which in the original context was almost certainly sarcastic. Paul may also echo Euripides, Bacchae 794–795 in Acts 26:14.