Hannah vows that "a razor shall never come on [Samuel's] head" (1 Sam 1.11). Commentators typically take that to mean that, like Samson, Samuel would be a
Nazirite from birth.
But I'm not so sure
about that.
First, the only thing that the text says about Samuel is that a razor will never come on his head. But a
Nazirite had two additional requirements --
abstinence from wine, beer, grape juice, grapes and raisins (
Nm 6.4) and no immediate proximity to dead people (
Nm 6.6ff).
Neither of these additional requirements are mentioned with respect to Samuel. Further, in Samson's case, God directly told Samson's mother that Samson would be a
Nazirite from birth (Judges 13.4-5). Only the hair is mentioned in Samuel's case.
So there were three requirements for a
Nazirite: no cutting of the hair, no grape or grape by-product, no proximity to dead people. Only the first is mentioned with respect to Samuel.
The second and third requirements seem obvious: priests were not allowed to have alcohol on their breath in God's presence (Lev 10.9) and they were not allowed to defile themselves on account of a dead person (Lev 21.1, 11) (although non-priests were also excluded from God's assembly if they came in contact with a dead person,
Nm 19).
But what about the hair? And why is it offered to God? Perhaps it, too, is a priestly thing. After all, it seems possible that the high priest's
turban (Lev 8.9) is supposed to suggest the flowing white hair of the ascended Jesus (Dan 7.9, Rev 1.14).
But that, also, doesn't seem quite right. The text in Numbers 6 dealing with
Nazirites doesn't merely mention hair, it specifically mentions not cutting hair -- specifically, that "no razor" will come on the
Nazirite's head. And the general rule seems to be that long hair dishonors a man (1 Co 11.14). (Although, interestingly, women, too, could become
Nazirites,
Nm 6.2, which would entail a woman dishonoring her head, 1 Co 11.15, at least temporarily, by cutting her hair at the completion of the vow.)
I wonder whether we can take a different approach, focusing on the razor rather than on the hair.
Specifically, I wonder whether whether we can think of the
un-cut head of hair as somehow reflecting God's sabbath rest, or something like that.
First, God prohibited Israelites from shaving the corners of their head or beards (Lev 19.27). But God also
prohibited reaping (or "shaving") the corners of the fields (Lev 19.9, 23.22). Perhaps also pertinent is that Israelites were to have untrimmed corners to their clothes (
Nm 15.38,
Dt 22.12).
In Sabbath years, however, fields were to be entirely uncut. The poor were allowed to gather whatever grew (Ex 23.10-11). So the whole field was to be a gleaning for the poor.
So I wonder: Ordinarily, the corners of the hair were to be left uncut. But, for a
Nazirite, the whole head was to be left uncut. Perhaps like the fields. Ordinarily, only the corners of the fields were to be left uncut for gleanings. But during Sabbath years, the whole field was to be left uncut and available for gleaning.
So the person with uncut hair represented the person at God's entire disposal -- just like the uncut field did not serve its human owner's purposes, but was entirely at the disposal of others. While this set of individuals includes
Nazirites, it would not be limited to
Nazirites.
Finally, I wonder whether Ex 20.25 fits in here as well, "If you make an altar of stone for me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for it you wield your tool on it, you will profane it." Christians are "living stones" in God's temple (1 Peter 2.5). I wonder if the OT person with uncut hair illustrated the
unprofaned, living stone, who qualifies to be built into God's true temple.
A lot of speculation, to be sure. I do rather doubt that Samuel was, in fact, a Nazirite. The rest of the stuff about hair, well, I'm just musing out loud.
