Numbers 6:5—Does the vow of the Nazarite contradict Paul’s prohibition against long hair?

Problem: Paul affirmed that it is against “nature” for men to have long hair (1 Cor. 11:14). But the vow of the Nazarite demanded that one not cut his hair.

Solution: The general rule was for men not to dress like women

Expanded from Deut. 22:5:
Deuteronomy 22:5

—Why did God call it an abomination for men to dress like women and vice versa?

Problem:

What is wrong with wearing the clothes of the opposite sex? Isn’t this just a matter of cultural preference, with nothing intrinsically immoral about it?

Solution:

God’s design here was apparently to make it possible to distinguish one sex from the other. Without distinctive clothes and length of hair (see comments on

1 Cor. 11:14

), the sexes could be more easily confused and the bounds of social and moral impropriety would have been more easily transgressed. Of course, which clothes are masculine and which are feminine will be determined in large part by the culture. But whatever the case, transvestites were hereby excluded.

, nor to wear long hair like women

Expanded from 1 Cor. 11:14:
Problem: Paul asked, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” But, the length of a man’s hair is relative to the culture and time in which he lives. It is not something that is known by nature.

Solution: This is a difficult passage, and commentators are not in agreement on it. But, there are two general kinds of answers.

Nature Understood Subjectively. In this sense, “nature” denotes the instinctive feelings or intuitive sense of what is proper. This, of course, may be affected by habits and practices unique to the culture. If this is the sense of the passage, then Paul’s statement means something like this: “Do not your own customs teach you that long hair is a shame for a man to have?” This interpretation is difficult to justify in terms of the normal meaning of the word “nature” (phusis) which has a much stronger sense than “custom” in the NT (cf. Rom. 1:26; 2:14).

Nature Understood Objectively. In this sense, “nature” means the order of natural laws. Paul speaks of homosexuality as being “against nature” (Rom. 1:26) and of Gentiles knowing “by nature”—that is, by the “law written in their hearts” (Rom. 2:15)—what is right and what is wrong. In this sense, Paul is saying something like this: “Even heathen, who have no special revelation, still have a natural inclination to distinguish the sexes by the length of their hair, women generally having fuller and longer hair.” Human beings instinctively distinguish between the sexes in different ways, one of which is the length of hair. There were exceptions arising out of necessity (health, safety), perversity (homosexuality), or special sanctity (the vow of the Nazarite). But, these only serve to prove the general rule based on the natural tendency to differentiate the sexes based on length of hair.

Of course, no absolute standard of what is “long” was in mind. This would vary with the culture. The main point was to aid in distinguishing the sexes. It was for this reason that the OT also forbade a man to dress like a woman (Deut. 22:5), a practice that would have given rise to all sorts of improprieties, both social and moral.

. Any exception was born out of either perversity (e.g., homosexuality), necessity (health, safety), or special sanctity. The vow of the Nazarite falls into the latter category and is an exception that helps establish the rule. God wished to distinguish the sexes for purposes of social and moral propriety. However, a special vow of dedication to God involving long hair but not wearing women’s clothes would scarcely tend to violate the spirit of the divine design of keeping the sexes distinguishable. No one with evil intentions of confusing the sexes for perverse reasons would be making such a self-sacrificing spiritual vow.