As children we were captivated by the story of Shimshonthe Hebrew equivalent of Samson, the strongest man in the world. But there are some other Nazarites in the Bible that might surprise you.
As children we were captivated by the story of Shimshon, the strongest man in the world. We were in awe of his heroics and mighty feats of strength. We remember how he killed a lion with his bare hands. We remember how he defeated a Philistine contingent with only a donkey's jawbone for a weapon. We remember how he carried the gates of Gaza on his back. But more than any of these particular episodes, we remember Samson's hair. It was long. He was a Nazarite. Nazarites have long hair. We all remember that.
But there are some other Nazarites in the Bible that might surprise you. For example, did you know that John the Baptist was a Nazarite? Did you know Paul was a Nazarite? Did you know that James the brother of YeshuaThe Hebrew/Aramaic name of Jesus of Nazareth. (lit, "salvation") was a Nazarite? How about Yeshua himself? Did you know that Yeshua was a Nazarite? That last one does beg some explanation, but first we will examine the particulars of the Nazarite vow.
The Nazir
The Hebrew word for Nazarite is Nazir. It is from the verb nazar, to separate. From its usage in the Torah(Hebrew) instruction, guidance; specifically, the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Often translated "law" or "Pentateuch", it would seem that Nazir means a "separated one." The Nazarites were under a peculiar vow of separation.
The three most famous Nazarites of the Bible are Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist. Yet these three are exceptional because they were all set aside as Nazarites prior to birth. The normal Nazarite vow was for a short term, from only a month to several years. Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist all were conceived in otherwise barren wombs and were dedicated by their grateful mothers into lives of separation under the Nazarite vow. But according to Torah, the life of Nazarite was open to any and all who desired it.
In the days of the Temple, if a man or woman desired to take a special vow of separation to the LORD, he or she could take a Nazarite vow. The specifications of the vow are found in Numbers 6. The vow could be taken for any term of length, but the Mishnah(Hebrew) a major ancient compilation of Jewish oral law; the foundational component of the Talmud specifies a minimum duration of 30 days.1 While under the term of the vow, the Nazir was prohibited from consuming any of the fruit of the vine, whether raisins or grapes, new wine or old wine. In addition, the Nazir was forbidden to drink any intoxicating drink. Aside from these consumption restrictions, the Nazir was also to avoid corpse contamination. In Torah law, contact with a dead body transmits ritual uncleanness. Because the Nazir was to avoid uncleanness from death, he was to avoid corpse contamination while under his vow, even in the death of close family members. Finally, while under the vow, the Nazir could not cut his hair.
A Haircut for ShaulThe Hebrew equivalent of Saul; often used in reference to Paul of Tarsus
In the New Testament, Paul takes a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18. It has not always been recognized as a Nazarite vow because rather than say, "He let his hair grow long," the text says, "He had his hair cut off because of a vow he had taken." We would assume that if he were taking a Nazarite vow, he certainly would not have his hair cut off. This mistake may stem from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Nazarite's hair. The hair of the Nazarite both symbolically and literally represented the amount of time that the Nazarite spent under the vow. When the term of the Nazarite's vow was completed, he cut his hair and burned it in the Temple. Burning the hair was a gesture symbolizing that the Nazarite was offering up to God the amount of time he had dedicated to the LORD as a Nazarite. If he had been a Nazarite for only a few months, it would only be a few months' growth. If he had been a Nazarite for several years, it would have been several feet of hair. But in order for the length of hair to accurately represent the term of the vow, the vow must be begun with a shaved head!
Another possibility for Paul's haircut is that he completed the term of his vow while in the Diaspora. Because a Nazarite vow can only be truly fulfilled at the Temple, the Sages say that one who takes and completes a Nazarite vow outside of the land of Israel must repeat the vow within the land of Israel. The Mishnah says, "One who made a Nazarite vow and completed his Nazarite term and afterwards came to the Land...He must be a Nazarite all over again. It once happened that queen Helene whose son went to war, said, "If my son return safely from the war, I will be a Nazarite for seven years; and at the conclusion of the seven years she came up to the Land, and the School of Hillel instructed her that she had to be a Nazarite again for seven years more."2 Perhaps in Acts 18 we see Paul completing a personal Nazarite vow before going on to Jerusalem where he will formally undergo the vow again under the auspices of the priesthood.
A third possibility for the haircut is that Paul became ritually unclean through corpse contamination during the course of the vow, so he shaved his head to represent the vow was defunct until he could return to Jerusalem for purification and to offer the sin offering and burnt offering which are specified in Numbers 6 for such an instance. If the vow was inadvertently broken through sudden contamination via a dead body, Numbers 6:9-12 mandate that he shave his head and start the vow over from the beginning of the term he had chosen, that is, to start growing his hair all over again.
Regardless of which situation it is that Paul was in, the terms of the Nazarite vow necessitated that he return to Jerusalem and the Temple to make the necessary sacrifices and to have his hair shaved in the Temple. Once he arrived in Jerusalem in Acts 21, he joined with four more believers who had also taken Nazarite vows and they went to the Temple together for haircuts and sacrifices.3
Priests and Nazarites
But why would anyone want to be a Nazir? What was the allure of the Nazarite life? What did it mean to be under a Nazarite vow?
One cannot help but notice that the laws of the Nazarite bear a striking resemblance to several of the laws of the priesthood. Just as the priesthood was forbidden to drink wine (yayin) or any fermented drink (shekar) when serving in the Tabernacle or Temple, so too the Nazir is forbidden any wine (yayin) or fermented drink (shekar).4 Just as the priesthood was commanded to avoid ritual contamination through a human corpse, so the Nazarite was forbidden.5 In fact, the Nazarite prohibition from corpse contact extended further than that of the average priest. The average priest was allowed to become unclean for close relatives. Only the High Priest was under purity restrictions as severe as the Nazarites.6 Finally, the priests were not allowed to shave their heads. So too, the Nazarites are not allowed to cut their hair while under the vow.7
Obviously the priesthood and the Nazarites share a similar status. The Torah even explicitly states that the High Priest has been separated (nezer) by virtue of the anointing oil poured on his head. Listen to the passage:
The High Priest
"And the High Priest from among his brothers, that had the anointing oil poured out on his head...he must not come upon a dead body. Even for his father or his mother he must not become unclean... because the Separation (nezer) of the oil of the anointing of his God is upon him." (Leviticus 21:10-12, Author's translation)
The Torah uses almost identical language to explain the Nazarite's high level of purity. Read the passage and compare it with the Leviticus passage just cited.
The Nazarite
"All the days of his Separation vow (nezer) he must not come upon a dead body. Even for his father or his mother, his brother or his sister he must not become unclean...because the Separation (nezer) of his God is upon his head." (Numbers 6:6-7, Author's translation)
Notice the identical construction of the Nazarite passage and the High Priest passage. By virtue of their construction and content, the two passages clearly point towards each other. The Torah means for us to make a connection between priest and Nazarite. Both High Priest and Nazarite enjoy a status of separation called "nezer" which is theirs by virtue of a ritual marking on their heads. For the High Priest it is the anointing oil poured out on his head that grants him the nezer status. For the Nazarite it is the hair on his head that grants him the nezer status.
The Torah lends us yet another connection between the Nazir and the priesthood and things on their heads. The Nezer HaKodesh is the Holy Crown that the High Priest wore as part of the priestly vestments.8 Inscribed on the Nezer HaKodesh were the words "Holy to the LORD."
A further parallel between Nazarites and Priesthood is obvious in the list of sacrifices both are to present to the LORD. The sacrifices the priests are to bring for their ordination are listed in Exodus 29. They include a sin offering, a burnt offering and a peace offering for ordination along with a basket of unleavened bread, cakes mixed with oil and wafers spread with oil. The sacrifices the Nazarite must bring at the termination of his vow include the same.
Three Would-Be Priests
What is the connection the Torah is emphasizing between Priest and Nazarite? Perhaps the Nazarite vow was the layman's response to the priesthood. To the average Israelite, priesthood was inaccessible, because according to Torah law, only the descendents of Aaron qualified for priesthood. Therefore a Reubenite or a Simeonite found himself excluded from position among the priests of the LORD. Perhaps the Nazarite vow was the next best thing, a sort of quasi-priestly status that could be attained by anyone who was willing to make the vow.
This may help to explain how it is that Samuel the Prophet rose to the place of High Priest. Samuel was not from the tribe of Levi or the House of Aaron. Rather he was an Ephraimite. It is likely that his formal adoption into the family of Eli granted him position enough in Aaron's house to take on the role of Priest. But it is also possible that his status of Nazarite since conception allowed him Priestly privileges that would otherwise not have been available to him. At any rate, the connection between priesthood and Nazarite is again emphasized in the story of Samuel.
John the Baptist was another Nazarite from birth. Unlike Samuel, John was already from a priestly family and was kosher(Hebrew) proper, permitted by Jewish law. Often used to describe food that it is permissible to eat. to serve in the priesthood by any standard. However, like the Essene sect of his day, he opted out of participating in the Temple services with a politically compromised and morally corrupted priesthood. When John reached the age of priesthood, that is 30, rather than going to serve as a priest he went to the Jordan baptizing. Perhaps his Nazarite status from conception was priesthood enough.
A third and particularly tantalizing Nazarite account is that of Yaakov(Hebrew) the Hebrew equivalent of Jacob, James HaTzaddik, James the righteous, the Brother of the Master.
Eusebius quotes Hegesippus in his Ecclesiastical History regarding the martyrdom of James.9 He writes, "James drank no wine or intoxicating liquor and ate no animal food; no razor came near his head; he did not smear himself with oil, and took no baths.10 He alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for his garments were not of wool but of linen. He used to enter the Sanctuary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people..." This text raises an intriguing problem. We find here a very strong and early tradition about James that places him inside the Temple Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is forbidden to all except for the priesthood. How is it that James, a man descended from the House of David and the tribe of Judah has access to the Sanctuary where only priests are allowed? How is it that we find James clothed in linen garments?that is, priestly garments?praying inside the Temple proper? Is it because James was a Nazarite, and as a Nazarite, he obtained some kind of quasi-priestly status? We must either accept it as so or reject the tradition of Hegesippus all together. Regardless of which we choose, we cannot ignore that again a connection between priest and Nazarite has been drawn
The Torah itself goes on to tie the priesthood and the Nazarites more tightly together by following the passage about the Nazarites with the Priestly Benediction of Numbers 6:22-27. It seems to be an awkward juxtaposition unless there is some connection between the Nazarite vow and the priesthood.
Yoseph the Nazarite
Another seemingly superfluous detail is that the Torah twice refers to Joseph as a Nazarite. Once in Jacob's blessing of the tribe of Joseph (Genesis 49:26) and once in Moses' blessing of the tribe of Joseph (Deuteronomy 33:16). The wording in both instances is, "Let all these [blessings] rest on the head of Joseph, on the hairy head of the nazir(Hebrew) one who has taken the vow of a nazarite among his brothers" (Genesis 49:26, Deuteronomy 33:16, Author's translation). But was Joseph a Nazarite? Surely not. The institution of Levitical priesthood had not even yet been introduced, much less the rites of Nazarite. Most translators understand the reference to Joseph as a Nazir simply in the sense of being separated. Just as a Nazir chooses a life of separation, so too Joseph was separated from his brothers. The Midrash(Hebrew) Literally "study, searching"; a type of Jewish commentary that draws connections between passages of Scripture to derive lessons and laws, often through the use of parables and legends. opts for a more literal interpretation, claiming that Joseph actually abstained from wine until he was able to sit and eat and drink with his brothers. "R. Isaac of Magdala said in the name of R. Judah HaNasi: 'From the day that Joseph departed from his brethren,...Joseph drank no wine until that day [on which he was reunited with them], but abstained from wine, as it says, "on the head of the nazir among his brothers."'"11
The astute reader of the Gospels will notice an unavoidable parallel between this Joseph midrash and the words of the Master when he says to his disciples, "I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in My Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:27, NIV). Like Joseph, the Master knows he is about to be long separated from his brothers, but he also knows that just like Joseph and his brothers, they will one day sit and eat and drink again. It is another remarkable instance in which Joseph typifies Messiah.
Yeshua the Nazarite
When the Scriptures place so much emphasis on the Nazarite vow and the Nazarite's abstinence from wine, can we really miss the connection between these words of Yeshua ben Joseph and the Nazarite vow? It is indeed a Nazarite-like vow that Yeshua makes when he utters these words to his disciples.
According to the Mishnah there are two components to undertaking a Nazarite vow. There is an oral declaration and a statement of term. The oral declaration is regarded as binding even if it is stated in less than explicit language. Thus one who said, "I will abstain from haircuts," or "I will abstain from grape-stones and grape-skins," or "I will be like Samson" are all regarded as having formally taken Nazarite vows.12 It is also said, "If they filled a cup [of wine] for him and he said, 'I will be an abstainer (nazir) from it, then he becomes a nazarite.'"13 The Master's words, "I tell you truth, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine," are even formulated as a statement of vow. According the Mishnah, such a vow should be regarded as a Nazarite vow.
In addition to the oral declaration, a statement of term is necessary. Thirty days is the minimum term of the vow. One who did not state his term at the outset of the vow is bound to at least thirty days.14 The Master states the term of his vow at the outset. He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again "until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
Thus according to halachah(Hebrew) literally, "walk"; traditional Jewish law concerning specific application of the commandments., Yeshua binds himself to a Nazarite vow at his last seder(Hebrew) literally, "order"; an ordered event, especially the meal eaten on Passover.
The Gospels tell us that during the crucifixion, Yeshua was twice offered vinegar (literally sour wine). The first time he refuses it.15 However, at the point of death and ultimate ritual defilement through uncleanness, he accepted it.16 How is it possible that he would break his vow to not drink of the fruit of the vine? If the vow was a Nazarite vow this can be explained. His vow would be defunct at the point of death because it would be temporarily terminated by his contact with death. Hence he refuses the vinegar earlier, but receives it at the very moment of death. The vinegar and the death are significantly linked. Both sever the vow. Thus the vinegar is symbolic of death and corpse contamination. When the Master accepts the vinegar, it symbolizes his accepting death. A vow severed by corpse contact must be re-entered only after purification. The Master's resurrection is his purification from death.
The significance of his accepting the vinegar is punctuated by a comment in the Midrash Rabbah on Ruth. There it is written, "Dip thy morsel in the vinegar refers to Messiah's sufferings, as it is said, 'But he was wounded because of our transgressions.'"17
If then we are to regard the Master as entering a Nazarite state as he prepares to go to the cross, we are better equipped to understand how his role and function change after the resurrection. After his resurrection we see the Master, like the Nazarites as a priest and yet not a priest. We see him in an immortal state, which like the Nazarite cannot be touched or corrupted by death.
After the resurrection he entered into a new role as High Priest over the House of God. As he ascended to the Father, he lifted up his hands and blessed the disciples with the Priestly Benediction, indicating his transition to priestly status.18 (The Priestly Benediction is the very text that follows the passage regarding Nazarites in Numbers 6.) Although he is not an Aaronic Priest, he has entered into a quasi-priestly status, a status vigorously defended by the writer of the book of Hebrews. He will retain that priestly role until he returns to his disciples as King. At that time he will drink again of the fruit of the vine and usher in the Kingdom.
Perhaps there will be a haircut on that day.
This article originally appeared in First Fruits of Zion's Bikkurei Tzion and is reprinted here with permission. All rights reserved by First Fruits of Zion. No part of this article may be copied or reprinted in any form, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (printed, written, photocopied, visual, electronic, audio or otherwise) without permission of the publisher. To acquire permission to translate this material in any form, please contact First Fruits of Zion, Inc. Brief quotations are permitted with citing of author, source and publisher. Visit the First Fruits of Zion web site.
- 1. Mishnah Nazir 1:3
- 2. Mishnah Nazir 3:6
- 3. Perhaps those who argue so strongly that this was not a Nazarite vow Paul had taken do so out of their reluctance to see Paul bringing a lamb, a ewe and a ram as burnt offerings, sin offerings and peace offerings. Commentators typically intone that Paul is exercising his principal of "being all things to all men" by participating in the vow. Those who propound that the Apostle held such a disingenuous intention are deliberately ignoring that Paul himself had taken the vow in Acts 18, long before coming under the pressure of James and the Jerusalem believers.
- 4. Leviticus 10:9, Numbers 6:3
- 5. Leviticus 21:1-4
- 6. Leviticus 21:11, Numbers 6:7
- 7. Numbers 6:5
- 8. Exodus 29:36
- 9. Ecclesiastical History 23.4. Williamson, G. A. 1965. Eusebius, The History of the Church. Mpls, MN. Augsburg Publishing.
- 10. These two basic forms of first century hygiene are not part of the Nazarite restrictions, nor is there a prohibition from meat, rather these would seem to be self imposed restrictions. Although it says James took no baths, we are to understand this as trips to the Roman bathhouses, a luxury enjoyed even by many of the pious Sages of his day. It goes without saying that James passed through the mikveh regularly.
- 11. Bereishit Rabbah 93:7
- 12. Mishnah 1:1,2
- 13. Mishnah 2:2
- 14. Mishnah Nazir 1:3-7
- 15. Mark 15:23, Matthew 27:34, Luke 37
- 16. John 19:29. His drinking vinegar at the cross should not be regarded as a breach of his personal vow to his disciples to not drink wine again until he drinks it with them in the Kingdom.
- 17. Ruth Rabbah 5.6 citing Isaiah 53:5
- 18. Luke 24:50.
