Two weeks ago, we looked at the three incidental prophecies which are mentioned in this chapter. The Prophecy of Micah about the birthplace of Christ is in no way incidental. But Matthew’s remarks about the prophecies of the slaughter of the children, the family’s trip into Egypt, and that Christ would be called a “Nazarene” are not quite as important. And, as we saw, they are open to debate by those who refuse to believe the Bible.
In the course of that message, I raised a question that I’d like to further explore this evening. When Joseph and the family returned from Egypt, “he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, (Christ) shall be called a Nazarene.” Some people mistakenly interpret that to mean that Jesus was a Nazarite. Why do I refuse to call Christ Jesus a Nazarite? There is more to it than just being right and accurate in our interpretation of the Word of God. There are a couple of principles which directly affect important doctrine and Christian practice.
Please turn to Numbers 6 – “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body. He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head. All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD. And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings. And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering: And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering. And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings. And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven: And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine. This is the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, and of his offering unto the LORD for his separation, beside that that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation.”
This scripture doesn’t give us any suggestion as to why someone would make this particular vow. It simply says that if someone chooses to do it, then these are the rules that apply. There are a couple of clues here about a general purpose, and then we have the illustration of Samson. Numbers 6:2 – “When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD….”: The word “separate” is “nazar” (naw-zar’) and it is translated only as “separate” or “consecrate.” The word “Nazarite” is “naziyr” (naw-zeer’). You can see and hear the close relationship between those words “nazar” and “naziyr.” A Nazarite was someone who was especially separated unto the Lord for some specific purpose.
It appears that the Nazarite vow was designed for a short duration, although we don’t have any examples. But Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. Judges 13:3 – “And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.” These same words were reiterated to Samson’s father. Then later as Samson lay in the arms of Delilah, he said, “There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.”
Some people argue that John the Baptist and Samuel were Nazarites as well. Even though there were some similarities between John’s life and the life of the Nazarite, we are not told specifically that either he or his parents had made that vow to the Lord. Zachariah was told that John “shall drink neither wine nor strong drink,” but what does that mean? I don’t drink wine or strong drink either, but I am not a Nazarite. I do drink grape juice, and I do eat raisons, but whether John did or didn’t we really can’t say. And what about Samuel? Again, he was a man wholly separated unto the work of the Lord throughout his life, but there isn’t a word of scripture which says that he was a Nazarite. So in studying the Nazarite we are limited to Numbers 6 and what we can learn from Samson.
Now, what were the rules which the Nazarites were required to follow? They could not come in contact, or have anything to do with human death. “All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body. He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head.” Some people don’t like the fact Samson, the Nazarite, went back to the dead carcase of the lion. But God doesn’t forbid the Nazarite from eating meat or killing a mosquito which lands on his arm. It was that he was not to become defiled by human death. The most obvious Nazarite prohibition was from strong drink, wine and anything grape. The curious among us might ask why? Some of this is obvious – alcohol is a poison which incapacitates any and every user. It doesn’t matter how much or how little, “wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” We should be able to understand why God prohibited things fermented, but why the prohibition of grape juice and grapes? I don’t even have a guess with which to answer that question. I just don’t know. Perhaps this wasn’t so much a rule as it was a mark of Nazarite.
Similarly, why couldn’t that person, man or woman, cut off his hair, until the end of his vow or until it was in some way interrupted? Again, I don’t have a reasonable explanation, except that the Lord can create any rules that He likes. But it might have something to do with the fact that the hair was shaved and burned as a part of the offering. On the other hand, it may have been to help denote this person as dedicated unto God. A month-long growth of hair may not have distinguished a Nazarite from any other man, and a three-month vow made by a woman might not have been distinguished her from anyone else, but for someone like Samson, a life-long growth of hair surely set him apart. It made people ask questions, giving that person an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Lord. On the other hand, that would not have to be necessary, to be a witness for Christ. And the long-skirted, black attired Catholic priests, may set themselves a part, but it doesn’t glorify the Lord.
Last week I raised a question for which I’ve discovered a partial answer. These scriptures speak about “shaving the head,” as distinguished from cutting the hair. My question was whether or not scissors or shears were available to the people of Israel in Samson’s day. To quote from a Wikipedia article – “It is most likely that scissors were invented around 1500 BC in ancient Egypt. The earliest known scissors appeared in Mesopotamia 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. These were of the ‘spring scissor’ type comprising two bronze blades connected at the handles by a thin, flexible strip of curved bronze which served to hold the blades in alignment, to allow them to be squeezed together, and to pull them apart when released.” Samson lived about 1150 BC – well after the suggested date for the invention of scissors. And the exodus took place after 1500 BC as well. This means that Delilah may have possessed some scissors with which to cut Samson’s hair while he was asleep.
Did the Nazarite prohibition of shaving the head forbid also the cutting of the hair. That certainly seems to be the case in regard to Samson. And cutting of the hair seems to contradict the spirit of the law, even if the Bible speaks of shaving it. I am of the opinion that the hair of the Nazarite was not to be cut or trimmed in any way.
What has all of this got to do with Jesus, the Nazarene?
What were the two primary rules which applied to the Nazarite? First, he could have nothing to do with human death; he could not defile himself by contact with it. But the Lord Jesus, had no qualms about contact with the dead. I didn’t take time to count them, but time and time again, when Jesus healed the sick, including the lepers, he deliberately touched them, when a simple word would have been sufficient. And in Luke 7 we read – “Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city (of Nain), behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.” In all of these cases it might be argued that the sick were healed the instant, or even before, Christ touched them. But as far as this dead young man was concerned, Jesus touched the contaminated coffin, the bier, before he raised the dead boy. It would seem that if Jesus was a Nazarite, the vow would have been deliberately broken in this case, if not in all the healings as well.
And what was the second rule of the Nazarite? He was never to eat or drink anything related to the genus “vitis” – the 60 species of grapes. Whether you believe that Jesus used fermented or unfermented fruit of the vine in His observance of the Lord’s Supper, either would definitely have been forbidden by the Nazarite vow. And what is the meaning of Luke 7:33-34 – “John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!” Furthermore there is the miracle at the wedding in Cana in John 2, when Jesus created some sort of fruit of the vine. For these reasons, I am quite convinced that Christ Jesus was not a Nazarite.
And why have I gone to all this trouble tonight? Because I wanted to point out that there is no Biblical reason to believe the common idea which says that Jesus had long hair, like a Nazarite. In fact, the words of Paul indicate that He didn’t. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” Doesn’t even nature itself say that long hair is feminine – unmanly – a shame on the head of a man? Some might reply by saying that the Nazarite vow was intended to humble the godly servant. But again, there is no reason for Christ to have done such a thing.
It is a fact that closely cut hair was common among the Roman men in Christ’s day. There are plenty of paintings, drawings and statues of men at that time – usually showing them with short hair. But it should be admitted that those were depictions of the Romans, and not the people of Israel. We might infer that Christ and the disciples dressed and looked like the Romans, but it might also be argued that God’s people are not supposed to pattern themselves after the world. I’m not sure that the Roman-look argument should be pressed too hard in regard to the Lord Jesus.
But the fact remains that Paul condemned long-hair on men, and it was also a fact that Christ Jesus was not a Nazarite. There was no reason for Christ to have long, flowing, curling feminine hair. And there was certainly the means for cutting it rather easily.
I do not believe that Jesus was a Nazarite, and I do not believe that He had long hair. I believe that we should be Nazarites at heart – separated and dedicated to God from the inside out. But I am convinced that God doesn’t want any of us to be Nazarites in the sense of Numbers 6. Furthermore I believe that there are Biblical principles which teach that male Christians should have short hair, and that female Christians should have longer hair.