Under the ancient Hebrew law, a man or woman engaged by a vow to abstain from wine and all intoxicating liquors, and from the fruit of the vine in any form; to let the hair grow; not to enter any house polluted by having a dead body in it, nor to be present at any funeral. If by accident any one died in their presence, they recommenced the whole of their consecration and Nazariteship. This vow generally lasted eight days, sometimes only a month, and sometimes during their whole lives. When the time of Nazariteship expired, the person brought a umber of sacrifices and offerings to the temple; the priest then cut off his hair and burnt it; after which he was free from his vow, Num 6:1-27 1Sa 2:11,12 .Perpetual Nazarites were consecrated as such by their parents from their birth, as was proposed by the mother of Samuel, 1Sa 1:11, and continued all their lives in this state, neither drinking wine, nor cutting their hair. Such were Samson and John the Baptist, Jdg 13:4,5 Luk 1:15 7:33.As the cost of the offerings required at the expiration of the term of Nazariteship was very considerable for the poor, they were often relieved by persons not Nazarites, who assumed these charges for them for the sake of performing an act of piety and charity. Paul availed himself of this custom to disarm the jealousy of those who represented him as hostile to the faith of their fathers. He took four Christian Jews whose vow of Nazariteship was accomplished, assumed the expense of their offerings, and with them went through the customary services and purification’s at the temple, Mal 21:20-26 . There is also in Mal 18:18 an unexplained allusion to some similar vow made by Paul himself, or perhaps by Aquila, probably in view of some danger escaped or some blessing received.<\/p>\n
(Hebrew: to consecrate, to separate) <\/p>\n
Among the Hebrews one separated from the common ways of men, and by vow consecrated to God. Though the vow of the Nazarite is pre-Mosaic, its codified form is found in Numbers, 6. According to this law, Nazarites might be of either sex. They were bound not to cut the hair or beard; to abstain from any wine, or fruit of the vine, or any strong drink; not to touch a dead Roman body or enter the house of the dead; and to offer sacrifices proper to their state. The Nazarite vow was either perpetual or temporary, the minimum being 30 days. Similar custom exists among the Arabs. <\/p>\n
(Hebrew, “consecrated to God”).<\/p>\n
The name given by the Hebrews to a person set apart and especially consecrated to the Lord. Although Nazarites are not unknown to early Hebrew history, the only specific reference to them in the Law is in Num. (vi, 1-21), a legal section of late origin, and embodying doubtless a codification of a long-standing usage. The regulations here laid down refer only to persons consecrating themselves to God for a specified time in virtue of a temporary vow, but there were also Nazarites for life, and there are even indications pointing to the consecration of children to that state by their parents.<\/p>\n
According to the law in Num. (vi, 1-21) Nazarites might be of either sex. They were bound to abstain during the period of their consecration from wine and all intoxicating drink, and even from all products of the vineyard in any form. During the same period the hair must be allowed to grow as a mark of holiness. The Nazarite was forbidden to approach any corpse, even that of his nearest relatives, under pain of defilement and consequent forfeiture of his consecration. If through accident he finds himself defiled by the presence of a corpse, he must shave “the head of his consecration” and repeat the operation on the seventh day. On the eighth day he must present himself at the sanctuary with two turtle doves or young pigeons, one of which was offered as a holocaust and the other for sin, and furthermore, in order to renew the lost consecration, it was necessary to present a yearling lamb for a sin offering. At the expiration of the period determined by the vow the Nazarite brought to the sanctuary various offerings, and with symbolical ceremonies including the shaving of the head and the burning of the hair with the fire of the peace offering, he was restored by the priest to his former liberty (Numbers 6:13-21). The meaning symbolized by these different rites and regulations was in part negative, separation from things worldly, and partly positive, viz. a greater fulness of life and holiness indicated by the growth of the hair and the importance attached to ceremonial defilement.<\/p>\n
The existence of a class of perpetual Nazarites is known to us through occasional mention of them in the Old Testament writings, but these references are so few and vague that it is impossible to determine the origin of the institution or its specific regulations, which in some respects at least must have differed from those specified in Num. (vi, 1-21). Thus of Samson who is called a “Nazarite of God from his mother’s womb” (Judges 13:5), it is merely said that “no razor shall touch his head”. No mention is made of abstention from wine etc., though it has been plausibly assumed by many commentators, since that restriction is enjoined upon the mother during the time of her pregnancy. That his quality of Nazarite was considered to be independent of defilement through contact with the dead is plain from the account of his subsequent career and the famous exploits attributed to him. The prophet Samuel is generally reckoned among the Nazarites for life, but nothing is known of him in that connection beyond what is inferred from the promise of his mother: “I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head” (1 Samuel 1:11). It has likewise been inferred from Jer. (35; cf. 2 Kings 10:15 sqq.) that the Rechabites were consecrated to the Lord by the Nazarite vow, but in view of the context, the protest against drinking wine which forms the basis of the assumption is probably but a manifestation on the part of the clan of their general preference for the simplicity of the nomadic as opposed to the settled life. In a passage of Amos (ii, 11, 12) the Nazarites are expressly mentioned together with the Prophets, as young men raised up by the Lord, and the children of Israel are reproached for giving them wine to drink in violation of their vow. The latest Old Testament reference is in I Mach. (iii, 49, 50), where mention is made of a number of “Nazarites that had fulfilled their days.” In the prophecy of Jacob (Genesis 49:26), according to the Douay Version, Joseph is called a “Nazarite among his brethren”, but here the original word nazir should be translated “chief” or “leader” — Nazarite being the equivalent of the defective rendering nazaroeus in the Vulgate. The same remark applies to the parallel passage in Deuteronomy (xxxiii, 16), and also to Lam. (iv, 7), where “Nazarites” (Heb. nezerim) stands for “princes” or “nobles”.<\/p>\n
Nazarites appear in New Testament times, and reference is made to them for that period not only in the Gospel and Acts, but also in the works of Josephus (cf. “Ant. Jud.”, XX, vi, 1, and “Bell. Jud.”, II, . xv, 1) and in the Talmud (cf. “Mishna”, Nazir, iii, 6). Foremost among them is generally reckoned John the Baptist, of whom the angel announced that he should “drink no wine nor strong drink”. He is not explicitly called a Nazarite, nor is there any mention of the unshaven hair, but the severe austerity of his life agrees with the supposed asceticism of the Nazarites. From Acts (xxi, 23 sqq.) we learn that the early Jewish Christians occasionally took the temporary Nazarite vow, and it is probable that the vow of St. Paul mentioned in Acts, xviii, 18, was of a similar nature, although the shaving of his head in Cenchræ, outside of Palestine, was not in conformity with the rules laid down in the sixth chapter of Numbers, nor with the interpretation of them by the Rabbinical schools of that period. (See Eaton in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Nazarites.) If we are to believe the legend of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius (“Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxiii), St. James the Less, Bishop of Jerusalem, was a Nazarite, and performed with rigorous exactness all the ascetic practices enjoined by that rule of life.<\/p>\n
———————————–<\/p>\n
MEINHARD, De Naziroeis (Jena, 1676); LESETRE, Nazaréat in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Nazaréat; FOUARD, Saint Paul, ses missions (Paris, 1892), p. 268; KNABENBAUER, Actus Apostolorum (Paris, 1899), 317 sqq. <\/p>\n
JAMES P. DRISCOLL Transcribed by Kenneth M. Caldwell Dedicated to St. John the Baptizer <\/p>\n
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XCopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York<\/p>\n
[or, rather, Nazirite] (Heb. Nazir, , fully , a Nazarite of God; Sept. ‘ properly , as in Jdg 13:7; Lam 4:7; but often or ; Vulg. Nazarceus; Talmud, ), the name given to such Israelites, whether male or female, as consecrated themselves to Jehovah by a peculiar vow prescribed in Numbers 6. (In the treatment of this subject we present a general view, referring to other heads for details on collateral points. See Vow.<\/p>\n
1. The Name and its Signification. The term comes with the verb , signifying to bind, and thence to separate. Hence we have the cognate (nezer), denoting a crown or diadem, which binds the head; the hair (Jer 7:29), which forms a natural crown; and consecration to God as a nazir, which is a separation from certain things that symbolize all that separates or hinders from union with God. The concrete occurs sixteen times in the Old Testament. It denotes, in general, one who is separated from certain things and unto others, and so distinguished from other persons, and consecrated unto God. In two passages (Gen 49:26; Deu 33:16) it appears in the phrase , one separated from his brethren, a touching description of Joseph, as he was in the providence of God separated from his brethren by their jealous cruelty for twenty years, and at the same time exalted above them in point of nearness to God and rank among men during the latter period of his life. In two others (Lev 25:5; Lev 25:11) it denotes that which is separated from common use. It is applied to the vine, while it remained untouched during the sabbatical and the jubilee years. “That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy nazir” (Lev 25:5), that is, of thy vine in the year of its separation from common use. “A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you; ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather its nazirs” (Lev 25:11), that is, the vines of the jubilee year. There are here two deviations from custom: the vine is not pruned, and its spontaneous produce is not gathered for consumption. It is remarkable that Joseph, in the context of Gen 49:26, is figuratively represented as “a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches run over the wall” (Gen 49:22); in other words, a young shoot from a fruitful tree, spreading forth its richly-laden branches in all the unrestrained luxuriance of nature. The verb (nazdr) is found in ten passages, two of which precede the Book of Numbers. In Lev 15:13 we read, Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness;” and in Lev 22:2,” Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,” namely, when they themselves are in their uncleanness, as is explained in the next verse. In these cases the separation is between the holy and the profane; and this usage naturally leads to the special meaning of the term nazir in the other twelve places in which it occurs.<\/p>\n
According to others the word , a diadem, contains the original idea of , which will then radically signify to crown, and the hair is regarded as a crown to the person. The Nazarite in that view is the crowned one, because, as we are told in Num 6:7, he has “the crown of God upon his head” ( ), evidently referring to his distinguishing badge of the freely growing and profuse mass of hair, which was considered an ornament (2Sa 14:25-26), and which he wasnot allowed to cut off (Num 6:5), because therein his vow chiefly consisted (Jdg 12:5); and this is confirmed by Num 6:9, where it is said, “If he defiled his head diadem ( ), he is to shave his head.” Hence also the signification of 13, ornamental hair, long hair (Jer 7:29 with Num 6:19); while the vine again, laden with fruit, is called Nazirite, or more probably Nazir, , i.e., the crowned (Lev 25:5; Lev 25:11); because in its uncut state, when its head is covered with grapes and foliage, it is as much adorned with a diadem as the head of the Nazarite with the abundant hair, just as we call the foliage of a tree its crown. Besides, the vine hills rising in the different parts of Palestine, and resembling heads covered with hair, may have suggested this figure to the Oriental mind, since the summits of mountains are called their heads () in Hebrew (Gen 8:5; Exo 17:9-10; Exo 19:20; Amo 1:2), and the foliage is not unfrequently compared to the hair or wool () of animals (Eze 17:3; Eze 17:22; Eze 31:3; Eze 31:10; Eze 31:14; see Saalschutz, Das Mosaische Recht, page 158).<\/p>\n
2. Origin of the Custom. The germs of the custom now under consideration reach farther back than the sojourn in the wilderness. The manner in which the topic is introduced in the Book of Numbers (chapter 6) indicates that the nazir was not unfamiliar to the minds of the Israelites. The application of the term to the undressed vine of the sabbatical year in a previous book (Levit.) tends to the same conclusion. A custom of this kind might have readily grown up during the long sojourn in Egypt, and have there served as a protest against the prevalent idolatry. Cyril of Alexandria considered that letting the hair grow, the most characteristic feature in the vow, was taken from the Egyptians. This notion has been substantially adopted by Fagius, Spencer, Michaelis, Hengstenberg, and some other critics. Hengstenberg affirms that the Egyptians and the Hebrews were distinguished among ancient nations by cutting their hair as a matter of social propriety; and thus the marked significance of long hair must have been common to them both. The arguments of Bahr, however, to show that the wearing of long hair in Egypt and all other heathen nations had a meaning opposed to the idea of the Nazaritish vow, seem to be conclusive. <\/p>\n
The head of the Nazarite was perhaps considered as adorned with its growth of hair (Lampe, in Miscell. Gron. 4:107 sq.), which, as a kind of crown, showed his consecration, and the touch of a knife or razor was a profanation of that which belonged to God. In other ancient nations it was usual to promise a god, especially in times of danger, the offering of the hair of the head or of the beard; and sometimes the hair was offered without a vow, especially by new-married women. (Compare Spencer, Legg. rit. 3:6, 1; Doughtsei Analect. 1:97.) So among the Egyptians (Diod. Sic. 1:18, 83 sq.), the Syrians (Lucian, Dea Syr. c. 60), the Greeks (Homer, Iliad, 23:41 sq.; Plut. Thes. c. 5; Theodoret, Quaest. in Leviticus 28; Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alferthum, 2:558), the Romans (Suet. Ner. 11; Martial, 9:17, 3 sq.), and the Arabians (see Koran, 2:192; lIamas, page 2 sq.). But the most striking resemblance to the Jewish custom is that found by Morier among the modern Persians. “It frequently happens after the birth of a son, that if the parent be in distress or the child be sick, or that there be any other cause of grief, the mother makes a vow that no razor shall come upon the child’s head for a certain period of time, and sometimes for all his life. If the child recovers and the cause of grief be removed, and if the vow be but for a time, so that the mother’s vow be fulfilled, then she shaves his head at the end of the time prescribed, makes a small entertainment, collects money and other things from her relations and her friends, which are sent as nezers (offerings) to the mosque at Kerbelah, and are there consecrated” (Second Journey, page 109). The abstinence of priests among the ancient Egyptians from certain kinds of food, as a token of peculiar sanctity, is a kindred ordinance (Porphyr. Abstin. 4:7); and some have supposed that the Nazaritish vow had an Egyptian origin, and was simply modified by the Hebrews to accord with their system (Spencer, Legg. Rit. 3:6. 1; Michaelis, Mos. R. 3:27); but the resemblances cited from the Egyptian priesthood are too fragmentary to support the theory. Indeed, the abstinence of the priests was not in the nature of a vow, but was a qualification for their sacred office. And although they were required to practice celibacy, we do not find that wine was forbidden to them. Besides, each feature of the Nazaritish vow is so intimately associated with Hebrew ideas and practices that the search for a foreign origin is wholly unnecessary. The reflections of Ewald (Isr. Gesch. 2:403 sq.) on this subject are too elaborate. Without reason, some, especially Roman Catholic writers, have thought that the first traces of monachism were to be found in this institution. See G. Less, Super lege Mos. de Nasiraeatu, prima eaque antiquissima vitae Monast. improbatione (Gott. 1789). Comp. Michaelis, Orient. Biblioth. 6:235 sq. The only resemblance is in the general purpose, there is none in the nature of the vow. See Dassov, Vota Monast. et Nasiraova inter se collata. (Kil. 1703); comp. Carpzov, Appar. 151 sq., 799 sq.; Reland, Antiq. Sacr. 2:10; Bahr, Symbol. 2:430 sq.; G.F. Meinhard, de Nasiraeis (Jen. 1676); Zorn, in Miscell. Leips. Nov. 4:426 sq. SEE HAIR.<\/p>\n
3. What constituted a Nazarite. The special vow whereby one bound himself to be a Nazarite ( ) involved the following three things: (a.) He is to abstain from wine and strong drink or as Onkelos, who renders by , and the ancient Jewish canons will have it, from old and new wine-vinegar made of wine or strong drink; liquor of grapes; grapes either moist or dried; and, in fact, from every production of the vine even from the very stones and skin of the vine. According to the Jewish canons, however, “strong drink made of dates, or such like, is lawful for the Nazarite” (Maimonides, Hilchoth Neziruth, 5:1). (b.) He must refrain from cutting the hair off his head during the whole period of his Nazariteship. (c.) He must avoid every contact with the dead, even if his parents or brothers or sisters were to die during his Nazariteship.<\/p>\n
If he was accidentally defiled by death suddenly occurring on his premises, he was obliged to observe the legal purification of seven days (comp. Num 19:14); cut off his hair on the seventh day which in this case was not burned, but buried (Mishna, Temura, 6:4; and Maimonides, ad loc.); bring on the eighth day two turtle-doves or two young pigeons to the priest one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering; hallow his head, offer a lamb of the first year as a trespassoffering, renew his vow, and begin again his Nazariteship, as the days which had passed since the commencement of his vow were lost through this interruption (Num 6:1-12). His desecration by a dead body is alone mentioned, because it might happen without his will; whereas the other two conditions of his vow were in his own power, and, it was presumed, would not be violated. According to the later penalties of the Talmud, men and women who, after taking the Nazaritish vow, cut their hair or plucked it off with their hands, or defiled themselves by wilfully coming in contact with dead bodies, or partook of wine, received forty stripes (Nazir, 4:3; Maimonides, Hilchoth Nezir, 5:2, 6, 8, 11). So rigid were the regulations that the Nazarite was not allowed to comb his hair lest some of it might be torn out, but he was permitted to smooth it with his hands (Nazir, 6:3).<\/p>\n
As the Mosaic law says nothing about the formality of the Nazaritish vow, and as all other declarations were binding wherever and whenever made (Deu 23:24), we may accept the ancient Jewish canons that the vow was made in private, and that it was binding even if a man or woman simply said, “Behold, I am a Nazarite!” ( ), or repeated, “I also become one,” when hearing any one else make this declaration (Mishna, Nazir, 1:3; 3:1; 4:1). A father could make a vow for his son before he was thirteen years of age, but not a mother for hers (Num 30:8; Sota, 3:8; Nazir, 3:6). A man had the power to annul his wife’s vow (Nazir, 4:1; Maimonides, Illchoth Neziruth, 2:17), but not his slave’s, and in case he did prohibit him to perform it, he was bound to fulfil it as soon as he was set at liberty (Nazir, 9:1).<\/p>\n
The vow seems to have been resorted to, like prayer, by pious people, under extraordinary exigencies, such as in cases of sickness (Josephus, War, 2:15), or when starting on a long journey (Mishna, Nazir, 1:6), or when wishing for children (ib. 2:7; 9, 10).<\/p>\n
4. Accomplishment of the Nazarite’s Vow, and the Offerings connected therewith. When the time of his Nazariteship was accomplished, the Nazarite had to present himself before the door of the sanctuary with three sacrifices, corresponding to the three prohibitions of Nazaritism <\/p>\n
(a) A he-lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering; <\/p>\n
(b) a ewe-lamb also of the first year for a sinoffering; and <\/p>\n
(c) a ram for a peace-offering.<\/p>\n
With the latter “he had to bring six tenth-deals and two thirds of a tenth- deal of flour, from which were baked twenty cakes, viz. ten unleavened cakes and ten unleavened wafers. These twenty cakes were anointed with a fourth part of a log of oil, as fixed by a law of Moses from Sinai, and were all brought in one vessel” (Maimonides, Hilchoth Veziruth, 8:1). Besides these extraordinary cakes and wafers, he had to bring the ordinary meat- offering and drink-offering appointed for all sacrifices (comp. Numbers 28). These three sacrifices were designed both as an atonement for the sins which the Nazarite unconsciously committed during his Nazariteship, and as an expression of thanksgiving to Him by whose grace he had happily fulfilled the time of his vow. After the priest had offered these sacrifices sin-offering first, burnt-offering second, and peace-offering third (Maimonides, Hilchoth Neziruth, 8:3) the Nazarite cut off his Nazir head ( ) i.e., the hair which was his Nazaritish pledge-at the door, threw it into the fire under the peace-offering, or, as the ancient Jewish canons have it, under the caldron in which the peace-offering was boiled (Mishna, Nazir, 6:8). Thereupon “the priest took the boiled shoulder of the ram, one of the ten unleavened cakes from the basket, and one of the unleavened wafers, laid them on the Nazarite’s hand, put his hands under those of the owner, and waved it all before the Lord” (Mishna, Nazir, 6:9). “The fat was then salted and burned upon the altar, while the breast and the fore-leg were eaten by the priests after the fat was burned; the cake, too, which was waved, and the boiled shoulder, were eaten by the priests, but the remaining bread and the meat were eaten by the owners” (Maimonides, Hilchoth Maase ha-Corbanoth, 9:9-11). <\/p>\n
Besides these sacrifices which were ordained, the Nazarite also brought a free-will offering proportioned to his circumstances (Num 6:13-21). In the time of the Temple there was a Nazarite chamber in the woman’s court in the south-east corner, where the Nazarites boiled their peace-offerings, cut off the hair of their heads, and cast it into the fire under the caldron. They were, however, also allowed to cut off their hair in the country. “But whether the Nazarite cut it in the country or in the sanctuary, he was obliged to have the hair cast under the caldron, and was not allowed to do it before the appointed time for opening the door of the court, as it is written, ‘the door of the tent’ (Num 6:8); which does not mean that he is to cut off his hair before or at the door, for that would be treating the sanctuary with contempt” (Mishna, Middoth, 2:5; Nazir, 6:8; Maimonides, Hilchoth, Neziruth, 8:3). The assertion, therefore, of Dr. Howson (Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 1:499), and others, that the vow recorded in Act 18:18 cannot be regarded as a regular Nazaritish vow, because it is said that Paul “shaved his head in Cenchrese,” and because it “was not cut off at the door of the temple where the sacrifices were offered, as was required by the law of the Nazarite,” is at variance with the practice of the Jews in the days of our Savior. One could also take upon himself one of the obligations of a Nazarite, and then send his sacrifices through a Nazarite, as may be seen from the following remark: “He who said, ‘Lo, I take upon myself the shaving of a Nazarite,’ is bound to bring the offerings of shavings for cleanness, and may offer them through any Nazarite he pleases. Or if he says, ‘I take upon myself half the offerings of a Nazarite,’ or ‘I take upon myself half the shaving of a Nazarite,’ he has only to bring half the sacrifices, and can send them through any Nazarite he likes, and that Nazarite pays those offerings from his own” (Maimonides, Hilchoth Neziruth, 8:18). This circumstance, which evidently arose from the fact that the offerings required from a full Nazarite were beyond the means of the pious poor, and which made it also an act of piety for a rich man to pay the necessary expenses, and thus enable his poorer brethren to complete their vow (Josephus, Ant. 19:6, 1), explains Act 21:23-24; Act 21:26, where we find that St. Paul could only take upon himself a part of the vow, then proceed with the poor Nazarites to the temple, and offer through them, and thus make them partake of his charges about the sacrifices. The Gemara (quoted by Reland, Ant. Sac.) states that Alexander Jannosus contributed towards supplying nine hundred victims for three hundred Nazarites. SEE PAUL.<\/p>\n
5. Duration of the Nazaritish Vow. As the Bible says nothing about the duration of the Nazaritish vow, but leaves every one who takes it to fix his own time, the administrators of the Mosaic law were obliged to specify a certain number of days as the lowest period for Nazariteship, since it not unfrequently happened that some took the vow without mentioning any definite time whatever, while others, if they could take it for a few days, would vow too often, and thereby diminish its solemn character. Hence the Jewish canons determined that ‘if any one says, I will be a Nazarite, without mentioning expressly how long, he cannot be a Nazarite less than thirty days; and even if he says, I take upon myself to be a Nazarite with an exceedingly great Nazariteship, it is not to be more than thirty days, because he expressed no time. If he mentions less than thirty days, e.g. if he says I am a Nazarite for one day or ten days or twenty days, he is nevertheless a Nazarite for thirty days, for there is no Nazariteship for less than thirty days. This is a law transmitted by tradition. But if he mentions a time more than thirty days, e.g. if he says thirty-one days, or forty, or a hundred days, or a hundred years, he must be a Nazarite during the said period, neither less nor more” (Maimonides, Hilchoth Neziruth, 3:1-3; Mishna, Nazir, 1:3; 3:1; 6:3; Joseph. War, 2:15, 1). The ancient expositors connect the fixing of the indefinite vow at thirty days, with the words, “he shall be holy” ( , Num 6:5), by the exegetical rule called Gematria ( ), where (10+5+10+5=30) amounts to thirty (comp. Siphri, ad loc.). It will be seen from this that there were some who took the Nazaritish vow for life. These are called (Nazaraei nativi), perpetual Nazarites, in contradistinction from those who took the vow for a limited period (Nazaraei votivi), and are therefore called , Nazarites for a certaxin number of days, or , Nazarites for a short time. The Bible mentions three Nazarites for life: Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist. Fathers, and mothers with the consent of their husbands, could devote their prospective children to perpetual Nazaritism (1Sa 1:11; Mishna, Nazir, 9:5), in which case the mother abstained during her pregnancy from wine and strong drink and unclean things (Jdg 13:4; Luk 1:15). These life-long Nazarites were afterwards divided into two classes, viz. : ordinary perpetual Nazarites, and , Samson-Nazarites, and the distinction between the two was that the former were allowed to diminish their hair when it became too heavy, if they were willing to bring the three appointed sacrifices, and were obliged to bring a sacrifice in case they became defiled; while the latter were not allowed to diminish their hair, however heavy, but were not required to bring a sacrifice in case they became defiled (Mishna, Nazir, 1:2), because Samson brought no sacrifice after he was defiled by contact with the jaw-bone of a dead ass (Jdg 15:16). Of course, any one who wished to become a Samson-Nazarite had distinctly to say so ( ) when he took the vow. One instance is related of Helena, queen of Adiabene (of whom some particulars are given by Josephus, Ant. 20:2), who, with the zeal of a new convert, took a vow for seven years in order to obtain the divine favor on a military expedition which her son was about to undertake. When her period of consecration had expired she visited Jerusalem, and was there informed by the doctors of the school of Hillel that a vow taken in another country must.,be repeated whenever the Nazarite might visit the Holy Land. She accordingly continued a Nazarite for a second seven years, and happening to touch a dead body just as the time was about to expire, she was obliged to renew her vow, according to the law in Num 6:9, etc. She thus continued a Nazarite for twenty-one years (Nazir, 3:6). <\/p>\n
5. The meaning of this interesting ordinance has been largely discussed by Philo JudaeusMaimonides, Abarbanel, and other Jewish writers. The following theories have been maintained by them and by modern writers:<\/p>\n
(1.) Some consider it as a symbolical expression of the divine nature working in man, and deny that it involved anything of a strictly ascetic character. Several of the Jewish writers have taken this view more or less completely. Abarbanel imagined that the hair represents the intellectual power, the power belonging to the head, which the wise man was not to suffer to be diminished or to be interfered with by drinking wine or by any other indulgence; and that the Nazarite was not to approach the dead because he was appointed to bear witness to the eternity of the divine nature. Of modern critics, Bahr appears to have most completely trodden in the same track. While he denies that the life of the Nazarite was, in the proper sense, ascetic, he contends that his abstinence from wile, and his not being allowed to approach the dead, figured the separation from other men which characterizes the consecrated servant of the Lord; and that his long hair signified his holiness. The hair, according to his theory, as being the bloom of manhood, is the symbol of growth in the vegetable as well as the animal kingdom, and therefore of the operation of the divine power.<\/p>\n
(2.) Others see in Nazaritism the principle of stoicism, and imagine that it was intended to cultivate and bear witness to the sovereignty of the will over the lower tendencies of human nature. The philosophical Jewish doctors, for the most part, seem to have preferred this view. Thus Bechai speaks of the Nazarite as a conqueror who subdued his temptations, and who wore his long hair as a crown, “quod ipse rex sit cupiditatibus imperans preeter morem reliquorum hominum, qui cupiditatum sunt servi.” He supposed that the hair was worn rough, as a protest against foppery. But others, still taking it as a regal emblem, have imagined that it was kept elaborately dressed, and fancy that they see a proof of the existence of ‘the custom in the seven locks of Samson (Jdg 16:13-19).<\/p>\n
(3.) Many regard it wholly in the light of a sacrifice of the person to God. Philo has taken this view of the subject. In his work, On Animals fit for Sacrifice, he gives an account of the Nazaritish vow, and calls it . According to him the Nazarite did not sacrifice merely his possessions, but his person, and the act of sacrifice was to be performed in the completest manner. The outward observances enjoined upon him were to be the genuine expressions of his spiritual devotion. To represent spotless purity within, he was to shun defilement from the dead, at the expense even of the obligation of the closest family ties. As no spiritual state or act can be signified by any single symbol, he was to identify himself with each one of the three victims which he had to offer as often as he broke his vow bytccidental pollution, or when the period of his vow carn to an end. He was to realize in himself the ideas of the whole burnt-offering, the sin-offering, and the peace-offering. That no mistake might be made in regard to the three sacrifices being shadows of one and the same substance, it was ordained that the victims should be individuals of one and the same species of animal. The shorn hair was put on the fire of the altar in order that, although the divine law did not permit the offering of human blood, something might be offered up that was actually a portion of his own person. Ewald, following in the same line of thought, has treated .the vow of the Nazarite as an act of self-sacrifice; but he looks on the preservation of the hair as signifying that the Nazarite is so set apart for God that no change or diminution should be made in any part of his person, and as serving to himself and the world for a visible token of his peculiar consecration to Jehovah.<\/p>\n
(4.) In all such disquisitions there is a basis of truth, combined with an element of error derived from the speculations of the age or of the individual. From a review of all the particulars of this institute, it is to be inferred that it was a typical representation of a holy life, forming, in the case of individuals, prominent examples of that fidelity to covenant engagements, for the interests of righteousness, which should have been found in the whole community of Israel. It exhibits to the view a practical symbol of that separation from sin which is coincident with dedication to God. It is a part of that system of teaching by figures which was adapted to a comparatively unsophisticated age. It was not in itself a principle or law for the regulation of conduct, as stoicism or asceticism, but a divinely appointed emblem of a duly regulated life. The symbolical character of the nazirate is manifest from its constitution. It was not incumbent upon any individual or order of men, and therefore possessed no inherent moral obligation. In its ordinary form it lasted only thirty, or, at most, one hundred days. It prohibited not merely intoxicating drink, but every product of the vine, whereas for purely moral purposes the Scripture simply enjoins temperance in all things. It imposed two other restrictions which are not in themselves moral, but only typical or ceremonial, namely, leaving the hair unpolled, and taking no part in the last offices that involved contact with the dead.<\/p>\n
A symbol thus regulated by a divine ordinance must have had a profound significance. Accordingly it sets forth, in a striking and beautiful manner, the leading features of a life devoted to God. It originates in a solemn resolve of the free-will, and is in this respect an interesting emblem of a godly life, which is the spontaneous outgoing of a heart renewed by the Spirit of God. It prescribes abstinence from every product of the vine. The intoxicating quality of the juice of the grape, by which reason is clouded and unbalanced, is laid hold of as the fit representative of sin, which darkens the intellect and corrupts the will. And every part of the vine is prohibited, not because it was the forbidden fruit, as some Jewish doctors affirm (Lightfoot on Luk 1:15; Magee, On the Atonement, ilust. 38), but because this symbolic act conveys the obvious lesson to refrain from sin in every shape and of every degree, since the slightest deviation from rectitude indicates a depraved nature as truly as the most enormous transgression. The growth of the beard is an index of manhood; and the unshorn locks present a striking display of the unrestrained luxuriance of corporeal growth and beauty. They are therefore embiematic of power, liberty, youth, and beauty, and of the unreserved exertion of all our faculties in the service of our Maker and Saviour. The determinate choice of that which is right and good is the principle of a holy life, and the coming forth of that choice into full effect is the beauty of holiness. The flowing locks are equally expressive of childlike simplicity and feminine grace, and therefore of that confiding dependence and yielding devotedness which are characteristic of the new-born child of God. This thought is well brought out by Fairbairn (Typol. 2:419), in harmony with Ainsworth and Baumgarten. But the softness of a faithful heart must be combined with the energy of a valiant spirit, to constitute the perfection of the godly or Christian character. Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist were no less distinguished for manly fortitude than for humble deference to the will of God. Defilement by a dead body is the third thing to be avoided. The dead body is the victim of death; the penalty of sin. It has, therefore, been the seat of that moral corruption, contact with which con veys ceremonial defilement.<\/p>\n
6. Relation of Nazaritism to the Levitical Economy.As the priestly office presupposed that purity of life of which the Nazarite was an emblem, it is natural that they should present some points of correspondence. Thus the priests were to abstain from wine or strong drink when they went into the tabernacle of the congregation to perform their official functions (Lev 10:9). But this was obviously a salutary precaution against their being disqualified in mind or body for the proper discharge of their duties. Hence they were not prohibited from other products of the vine; and when not officiating they were under no restriction but the ordinary one of temperance. The high-priest, also, upon whom was “the crown () of the anointing oil of his God,” was not to touch any dead body, or defile himself for his father or his mother (Lev 21:11-12). But the ordinary priests were not placed under the same restraint, plainly because a substitute could in this case be found for one who was under a temporary defilement. Maimonides (More Nebochim, 3:48) speaks of the dignity of the Nazarite, in regard to his sanctity, as being equal to that of the high- priest. The, abstinence from wine enjoined upon the high-priest on behalf of all the priests when they were about to enter upon their ministrations, is an obvious but perhaps not such an important point in the comparison. There is a passage in the account given by Hegesippus of St. James the Just (Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 2:23), which, if we may assume it to represent a genuine tradition, is worth a notice, and seems to show that Nazarites were permitted even to enter into the Holy of Holies. He says that St. James was consecrated from his birth neither to eat meat, to drink wine, to cut his hair, nor to indulge in the use of the bath, and that to him alone it was permitted ( ) to enter the sanctuary. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the half acerdotal character of Samuel might have been connected with his prerogative as a Nazarite. Many of the fathers designate him as a priest, although St. Jerome, on the obvious ground of his descent, denis that he had any sacerdotal rank (see Ortlob, Thes. Nov. Theol.-Philol. 1:587).<\/p>\n
The Nazir did not sequester himself from the engagements or enjoyments of domestic or social life. His vow usually lasted, not for life, but for a number of days determined by himself. He did not therefore form a fraternity, but continued as an individual to participate in the ordinary affairs of every-day life. This vow merely afforded to persons of a certain temperament, in a peculiar state of religious feeling, or in entering on a particular enterprise, a course of typical observance, in which the higher tone of a devout imagination might find a definite and legitimate scope. Such a mode of action, when undertaken with a proper sense of its symbolic import, in accordance with the sanction of the Deity, was well calculated to cultivate pure desires and promote holy tempers in the devotee himself, and at the same time to convey useful and impressive lessons to those who were intelligent and respectful witnesses of his conduct during the time of his separation.<\/p>\n
7. Later Notices. The Nazaritish vow was practiced with more or less frequency during all periods of the Old-Testament history. Ewald supposes that Nazarites for life were numerous in very early times, and that .they multiplied in periods of great political and religious excitement, We have already found traces of its observance in Judges and 1 Samuel. Amos introduces the Lord expostulating with the people, because, when he had raised up young men for Nazarites, they had given them wine to drink (Amo 2:11-12). Jeremiah laments the miserable change that had come over the Nazarites (princes, Gesen., Blayney) in consequence of the desolations of the holy city and land (Lam 4:7-8). This lamentable state of things was the natural result of the national defection. The Nazaritish vow then sprang from an earnest heart as a solemnn protest against the formality of the times. It was a cry from some one who had not bowed the knee to the Baal of the age a welcome ray of hope amid the darkness that overshadowed the Church. It was therefore to be expected in the days of apostasy and peril. Individual piety and personal circumstances might bring it forth in all conditions of the Church militant.<\/p>\n
In the time of Judas Maccabaeus we find the devout Jews, when they were bringing their gifts to the priests, stirring up the Nazarites of days who had completed the time of their consecration to make the accustomed offerings (1Ma 3:49). From this incident, in connection with what has been related of the liberality of Alexander Jannaens and Herod Agrippa, we may infer that the number of Nazarites must have been very considerable during the two centuries and a half which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. The instance of St. John the Baptist and that of St. James the Just (if we accept the traditional account) show that the Nazarite for life retained his original character till later times; and the act of St. Paul in joining himself with the four Nazarites at Jerusalem seems to prove that tvow of the Nazarite’ of days was as little altered in its important features. The case of Helena, queen of Adiabene, has already been cited. Gratz (Gesch. der Juden, 3:80) compares Nazarites and Essenes (q.v.).<\/p>\n
8. Literature. In addition to the works repeatedly cited above, especially the Talmudic treatise Nazir, and the commentary called Siphr,, we may mention Michaelis, Laws of Moses, 2:284 sq.; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, 1:364; 2:416, 430; Ewald, Alterthum. page 96 sq.; Critici Sacri ad loc. Num.; Hengstenberg, Egypt and Moses, page 190; Keil, Bibl. Archdologie, 1:322; and on Paul’s vows the monograph of Reineccius, De Paulo Nasirono (Weissenf. 1720). Others are cited by Volbeding, Index, pages 45, 168; and by Danz, WIrterb. page 689.<\/p>\n
(Heb. form Nazirite), the name of such Israelites as took on them the vow prescribed in Num. 6:2-21<\/span>. The word denotes generally one who is separated from others and consecrated to God. Although there is no mention of any Nazarite before Samson, yet it is evident that they existed before the time of Moses. The vow of a Nazarite involved these three things, (1<\/strong>) abstinence from wine and strong drink, (2<\/strong>) refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and (3<\/strong>) the avoidance of contact with the dead.<\/p>\n When the period of the continuance of the vow came to an end, the Nazarite had to present himself at the door of the sanctuary with (1<\/strong>) a he lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, (2<\/strong>) a ewe lamb of the first year for a sin-offering, and (3<\/strong>) a ram for a peace-offering. After these sacrifices were offered by the priest, the Nazarite cut off his hair at the door and threw it into the fire under the peace-offering.<\/p>\n For some reason, probably in the midst of his work at Corinth, Paul took on himself the Nazarite vow. This could only be terminated by his going up to Jerusalem to offer up the hair which till then was to be left uncut. But it See ms to have been allowable for persons at a distance to cut the hair, which was to be brought up to Jerusalem, where the ceremony was completed. This Paul did at Cenchrea just before setting out on his voyage into Syria (Acts 18:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n On another occasion (Acts 21:23-26<\/span>), at the feast of Pentecost, Paul took on himself again the Nazarite vow. “The ceremonies involved took a longer time than Paul had at his disposal, but the law permitted a man to share the vow if he could find companions who had gone through the prescribed ceremonies, and who permitted him to join their company. This permission was commonly granted if the new comer paid all the fees required from the whole company (fee to the Levite for cutting the hair and fees for sacrifices), and finished the vow along with the others. Four Jewish Christians were performing the vow, and would admit Paul to their company, provided he paid their expenses. Paul consented, paid the charges, and when the last seven days of the vow began he went with them to live in the temple, giving the usual notice to the priests that he had joined in regular fashion, was a sharer with the four men, and that his vow would end with theirs. Nazarites retired to the temple during the last period of seven days, because they could be secure there against any accidental defilement” (Lindsay’s Acts).<\/p>\n As to the duration of a Nazarite’s vow, every one was left at liberty to fix his own time. There is mention made in Scripture of only three who were Nazarites for life, Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist (Judg. 13:4<\/span>, 5<\/span>; 1 Sam. 1:11<\/span>; Luke 1:15<\/span>). In its ordinary form, however, the Nazarite’s vow lasted only thirty, and at most one hundred, days. (See RECHABITES<\/span>)<\/p>\n This institution was a symbol of a life devoted to God and separated from all sin, a holy life.<\/p>\n NAZARITE, properly, NAZIRITE; Hebrew nazir Elohim, “one separated to God,” Greek, naziraios). (See NAZARENE.) Nezer is also “a crown or diadem on the head”; and the hair, the natural crown (Jer 7:29). Joseph in Gen 49:26; Deu 33:16, is nezir, one “separated” from his brethren, at the same time “separated” to God and to be lord of Egypt, typifying the two sides of Jesus’ realizing the designation given Him, “Nazarene,” in accordance with general prophecy (Mat 2:23). In Lev 25:5; Lev 25:11, “neither gather the grapes of thy ‘Nazarite’ (undressed) vine,” the figure is taken from the “unshorn” locks of the Nazarite, “separated” (by being unpruned) from common use in the sabbatical and the Jubilee years. In Lev 15:31 nazar expresses separation” from uncleanness. The rule of the Nazarite is given Num 6:2; “when either man or woman shall separate themselves to … vow of a Nazarite” implies, it was no new institution, but one now regulated by divinely given rules.<\/p>\n Voluntary vows accorded with legalism. Noah’s excess in wine, Joseph’s untrimmed hair separating him from the closely polled Egyptians, the distinction of clean and unclean, and the connection of death with sin known long before, suggested voluntary vows prompted by religious zeal, to which now was afforded legal sanction. Man or woman might ordinarily of their own free will take the vow. In special cases God imposed the vow through the parent. The Pentateuch lays down the rule only for a “Nazarite of days” as the Mishna terms it; “the Nazarite for perpetuity” appears only in the Scripture history. Samson ordained to be a Nazarite from the womb (Jdg 13:5-6; Jdg 16:17). Samuel in a great degree (but not as to abstinence from wine) was the same (1Sa 1:11), by Hannah before his birth “given unto the Lord all the days of his life … no razor coming upon his head.”<\/p>\n Also John the Baptist, “drinking neither wine nor strong drink … filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb,” but not letting the hair grow (Luk 1:15). The three were called of God to be instruments of a revival in great crises of Israel and the church. The seeming violation of the Nazarite law in Samson’s contact with the dead shows that the spirit of the law herein rises above the letter; the object of his mission justified the deviation from rule even without ceremonial purification. In three things the Nazarite separated himself from ordinary men, though otherwise freely mixing with them:<\/p>\n 1. Abstinence from wine, strong drink (including date and palm wine), and the grape in whatever form; so the high priest and priests when performing official functions (Lev 10:9).<\/p>\n 2. Not cutting the hair during the vow; it symbolized physical strength and youthful manhood, and thus the man’s whole powers dedicated to the service of God; answering to the high priest’s” ‘crown’ (neetser) of the anointing oil of his God” (Lev 21:12).<\/p>\n 3. Noncontact with a corpse even of a nearest relative; so the high priest (Lev 21:11-12).<\/p>\n Samuel’s Nazarite prerogative, with God’s extraordinary call, seem to have given him a sacerdotal character. The Nazarites did not form an ascetic fraternity, but followed observances typifying restraint of self will and fleshly appetite and separation unto God; Rom 12:1-2, expresses the corresponding obligation of our Christian life to “present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,” etc. Accidental defilement entailed loss of the previous time and recommencing the days of his dedication, shaving the head and the ordinary purification enjoined for others Num 6:9-12; Num 19:11-12), besides a trespass offering peculiar to his case. In concluding his term of days he offered a sin offering, a burnt offering (implying whole self dedication), and a peace offering (thanksgiving) with unleavened bread. That the three offerings might represent the one reality, namely, his realizing in himself penitent faith in God’s atoning mercy covering sin, whole self-surrender to God, and thankfulness to Him, the three animals were of one species, a lamb of the first year, an ewe, a ram.<\/p>\n His shorn hair was put on the fire of the altar, in order that, although human blood must not be offered, something of the Nazarite’s body, and that representing his manly strength, should be offered. “Separation unto Jehovah (Num 6:2) is the radical idea. Whereas the Nazarite marked this by abstaining from wine, the Christian seals his consecration by obeying Christ’s invitation, “drink ye all of this.” Lightfoot (Exercit. Luk 1:15) leans to the Jews’ identification of the vine with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the N. vow with Adam’s state before he fell.(?) Paul’s shaving his head at Cenchreae was not a strict Nazarite’s vow, otherwise he would have offered his hair with the sacrifices at the temple door; but a modified Nazarite vow, usual then in respect to deliverances from sickness or other calamity (Act 18:18). In Act 21:24-27 a strict Nazarite vow is referred to on the part of four poor men. Paul as a charity defrayed the charges of their offerings to show his respect for the law.<\/p>\n God by Amos (Amo 2:11-12) complains, “I raised up of your young men for Nazarites.” It was part of Israel’s high privilege that there were, of the class most addicted to self-indulgence, youths who by solemn vow abstained from wine and all defilements. God left nothing undone to lead Israel to holiness. “Her Nazarites were purer than snow … whiter than milk … more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphires” (Lam 4:7). God made their body not less, but more, fair by abstinence. Similarly, Daniel (Dan 1:8-15); David (1Sa 16:12; 1Sa 17:42), type of Messiah (Son 5:10). But Israel so despised God’s favors to tempt the Nazarite to break the vow; “ye gave the Nazarite wine to drink.” Though not cut off from the social world, the Nazarite would feel in spirit reminded by his peculiar dedication, which was a virtual protest against the self indulgence and self seeking of the world, that he was not of the world. Our rule is similar (Joh 17:15-16).<\/p>\n Nazarite. This word is derived from a Hebrew word, which signifies to ‘separate one’s self;’ and as such separation from ordinary life to religious purposes must be by abstinence of some kind, so it denotes ‘to refrain from anything.’ Hence the import of the term Nazariteone, that is, who, by certain acts of self-denial,’ consecrated himself in a peculiar manner to the service, worship, and honor of God.<\/p>\n We are here, it is clear, in the midst of a sphere of ideas totally dissimilar to the genius of the Christian system; a sphere of ideas in which the outward predominates, in which self-mortification is held pleasing to God, and in which man’s highest service is not enjoyment with gratitude, but privation with pain.<\/p>\n It may be questioned, if at least so much of this set of notions as supposes the Deity to be gratified and conciliated by the privations of his creatures, is in harmony with the ideas of God which the books of Moses exhibit, or had their origin in the law he promulgated. The manner in which he speaks on the subject (Num 6:1-21) would seem to imply that he was not introducing a new law, but regulating an old custom; for his words take for granted, that the subject was generally and well known, and that all that was needed was such directions as should bring existing observances into accordance with the Mosaic ritual.<\/p>\n The law of the Nazarite, which may be found in Numbers 6, is, in effect, as followsmale and female might assume the vow; on doing so a person was understood to separate himself unto the Lord; this separation consisted in abstinence from wine and all intoxicating liquors, and from everything made therefrom: ‘From vinegar of wine, and vinegar of strong drink; neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes or dried;’ he was to ‘eat nothing of the vine-tree, from the kernels even to the husks.’ Nor was a razor to come upon his head all the time of his vow; he was to ‘be holy, and let the locks of the hair of his head grow.’ With special care was he to avoid touching any dead body whatever. Being holy unto the Lord, he was not to make himself unclean by touching the corpse even of a relative. Should he happen to do so, he was then to shave his head and offer a sin-offering and a burnt-offering; thus making an atonement for himself, ‘for that he sinned by the dead.’ A lamb also, of the first year, was to be offered as a trespass-offering. On the termination of the period of the vow the Nazarite himself was brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, there to offer a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, a peace-offering and a meat and a drink-offering. The Nazarite also shaved his head at the door of the tabernacle, and put the hair grown during the time of separation into the fire which was 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 in the hands of the Nazarite after the hair of his separation is shaven; and the priest shall wave them for a wave-offering.’ ‘After that the Nazarite may drink wine.’<\/p>\n There do not want individual instances which serve to illustrate this vow, and to show that the law in the case went into operation. Hannah, Samson’s mother, became a Nazarite that she might have a son. Samson himself was a Nazarite from the time of his birth (Judges 13).<\/p>\n From the language employed by Samson, as well as from the tenor of the law in this case, the retention of the hair seems to have been one essential feature in the vow. It is, therefore, somewhat singular that any case should have been considered as the Nazaritic vow in which the shaving of the head is put forth as the chief particular. St. Paul is supposed to have been under this vow, when (Act 18:18) he is said to have ‘shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow’ (see also Act 21:24). The head was not shaven till the vow was performed, when a person had not a vow.<\/p>\n [Naz’arite]<\/p>\n This term implies ‘separation’; it was applied to either man or woman that vowed to separate themselves unto the Lord. Three things especially were enjoined upon the Nazarite.<\/p>\n 1. He must not touch strong drink or anything that came of the vine: typical of turning away from sources of earthly energy and joy.<\/p>\n 2. No razor must come upon his head: suggestive of the renunciation of self, and the giving up of natural rights and proprieties as man: cf. 1Co 11:7; 1Co 11:14.<\/p>\n 3. He must not touch any dead body: typical of avoiding contact with moral defilement, the sphere of death and alienation from God brought about through sin. The point of the Nazarite was to live to God.<\/p>\n If any one died suddenly near to a Nazarite, he was defiled: he had to shave his head, offer sacrifices, and commence all again. When the period of his separation was fulfilled, he was to offer a burnt offering, a sin offering, a peace offering, a meat offering, and a drink offering, with the addition of the offerings made at the consecration of the priests. He was to shave his head and burn the hair in the fire which was under the peace offering: type of the full communion, which is the result of the sacrifice of Christ. Num 6:1-21.<\/p>\n The Nazarite was specially raised up of God as the vessel of His power on behalf of the people when the pressure under which they were suffering was from enemies within their own border (as the Philistines), and when owing to the moral condition of the people it was not possible for God to interfere in ordinary ways of deliverance. The Nazarite was marked on the one hand by a special energy of the Spirit of God, but on the other by rigid separation from the natural sources of excitement, the proprieties and the moral corruption which were connected with the life of the people. We see this in John the Baptist.<\/p>\n Samson was a Nazarite from his birth. Before he was born it was declared that no razor must come on his head. His mission was to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines. Samson betrayed his secret, but sealed his mission by his own death. Jdg 13:1-5.<\/p>\n Christ was morally the true Nazarite; He was the holy one, and instead of having earthly joy He was emphatically ‘the man of sorrows’ when here, but also He has died to sin and lives to God. He answered to all the sacrifices, but the day is approaching when He will drink wine anew in the kingdom, as He said in Mat 26:29; and be able to say to others, “Eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.” Christians also are Nazarites to God, not because of any vow, but as sanctified in Christ Jesus. He said, “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” Joh 17:19; 1Co 1:2.<\/p>\n H5139<\/span> <\/p>\n Law concerning<\/p>\n Num 6:1-21<\/span>; Jdg 13:5<\/span> <\/p>\n \n Character of<\/p>\n Lam 4:7<\/span>; Amo 2:11-12<\/span> <\/p>\n \n Instances of:<\/p>\n \n – <\/strong>Samson<\/p>\n Jdg 13:5<\/span>; Jdg 13:7<\/span>; Jdg 16:17<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Samuel<\/p>\n 1Sa 1:11<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>Rechabites<\/p>\n Jer 35<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n – <\/strong>John the Baptist<\/p>\n Mat 11:18<\/span>; Luk 1:15<\/span>; Luk 7:33<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Naz’arite. More properly, Naz’irite. (one separated). One of either , who was bound by a vow of a peculiar kind, to be set apart from others for the service of God. The obligation was either for life or for a defined time. There is no notice in the Pentateuch of Nazarites for life; but the regulations for the vow of a Nazarite of days are given. Num 6:1-21.<\/p>\n The Nazarite, during the term of his consecration, was bound to abstain from wine grapes, with every production of the vine and from every kind of intoxicating drink. He was forbidden to cut the hair of his head, or to approach any dead body, even that of his nearest relation.<\/p>\n When the period of his vow was fulfilled, he was brought to the door of the Tabernacle, and was required to offer a he-lamb for a Burnt Offering, a ewe-lamb for a Sin Offering, and a ram for a Peace Offering, with the usual accompaniments of Peace Offerings, Lev 7:12-13, and of the offering made at the consecration of priests. Exo 29:2; Num 6:15 He brought also a Meat [Meal] Offering and a drink offering, which appear to have been presented by themselves as a distinct act of service. Num 6:17. He was to cut off the hair of “the head of his separation,” (that is, the hair which had grown during the period of his consecration), at the door of the Tabernacle, and to put it into the fire under the sacrifice on the altar.<\/p>\n Of the Nazarites for life, three are mentioned in the Scriptures — Samson, Samuel and St. John, the Baptist. The only one of these actually called a Nazarite is Samson. We do not know whether the vow for life was ever voluntarily taken by the individual. In all the cases mentioned in the sacred history, it was made by the parents before the birth of the Nazarite himself.<\/p>\n The consecration of the Nazarite bore a striking resemblance to that of the nigh priest. Lev 21:10-12. The meaning of the Nazarite vow has been regarded in different lights. It may be regarded as an act of self-sacrifice, That it was essentially a sacrifice of the person to the Lord is obviously in accordance with the terms of the law. Num 6:2. As the Nazarite was a witness for the straitness of the law, as distinguished from the freedom of the gospel, his sacrifice of himself was a submission to the letter of the rule. Its outward manifestations were restraints and eccentricities. The man was separated from his brethren, that he might be peculiarly devoted to the Lord. This was consistent with the purpose of divine wisdom, for the time for which it was ordained.<\/p>\n Num 6:2 (c) This type represents one who willingly takes the path of separation to live only and constantly for the glory of GOD. (See also Jdg 13:5).<\/p>\n NAZARITE Under the ancient Hebrew law, a man or woman engaged by a vow to abstain from wine and all intoxicating liquors, and from the fruit of the vine in any form; to let the hair grow; not to enter any house polluted by having a dead body in it, nor to be present at … Continue reading “Nazarite”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-encyclopedic-dictionary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69689","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Nazarite<\/h2>\n
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Nazarite<\/h2>\n
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Nazarite<\/h2>\n
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Nazarite<\/h2>\n
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Nazarite<\/h2>\n
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Nazarite<\/h2>\n
Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"