1 Corinthians11:14

The point being made here is that all the various cultures in that area of the world during that time in history were in agreement that generally, a man should have short hair, not long hair like a woman. Of course there were exceptions; in Israel those who took a Nazarite vow could not cut their hair as long as the vow was in effect, and those who wanted to show rebellion against authority grew their hair long, like Absalom.

EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF LONG HAIR

The only evidence in favor of Jesus having long hair is the Shroud of Turin which is something I did not put any stock in previously, but I have been convinced to change my mind.

The image on the shroud is reversed, like a negative and it was burned into only the top two or three microns of each surface fiber of the fabric.

In order to see if the Shroud of Turin was a forgery or real, someone offered a prize of one million US dollars to anyone who could produce a similar type of image of a man on linen (According to Glen Beck in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XfbQH7kK2Y). It proved impossible.

The following details come from an interview that Michael Knowles did with Jeremiah Johnston, found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OElbxDPsqpw&t=756s.

At least 120 organizations have the Shroud of Turin carefully and all of them say it was not a forgery. The most helpful study was the one carried out by a group of scientists from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Italy, which used VUV directional radiation to color pieces of linen and the resulting images are similar in character to the image on the shroud. But they could not achieve anything even close to the size of a full-grown man because that would require 34 trillion watts of VUV power (to date the most powerful VUV sources available can produce several billion watts).

The Shroud of Turin obviously depicts a man with long hair, and this has convinced me that Jesus did indeed have long hair. The question is Why?

OPTION ONE:  Some suggest that Jesus had taken a Nazarite vow. However, there are problems with the Nazarite vow theory.

It appears that Jesus did not refrain from drinking wine, and He touched dead people (in order to make them alive again); both of which were strictly forbidden for those in a Nazarite vow. Mt 11:19, and its parallel, Lk 7:34, says “the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, “He is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” The part that says he “came eating and drinking” is not the words of the mockers, but the words of Jesus about Himself.

On the cross, Jesus was offered two things to drink (Matt 27:34 and 48). The first He refused to drink (see also Mark 15:23), the second, according to John 19:30, He “received.” The first one was wine mixed with gall (some say it included Myrrh) intended to dull the pain, and that is why He refused to drink it. He refused to dull the pain. The second is always called “wine vinegar”. Most sources say it was sour wine diluted with water. This was used to quench thirst. John alone records that Jesus said, “I thirst”, to which someone responded by giving his this “wine vinegar” and he “received it” (Jn 19:30). The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges shows the contrast well, indicating that Jesus “refused the stupefying draught which would cloud his faculties; he accepts what will revive them (His faculties) for the effort of a willing surrender of His life.”

If Jesus had taken a Nazarite vow, He should have refused both of the liquids offered to Him while on the cross. As the law of the Nazarite vow is described in Numbers 6:1-21, it went far beyond not drinking true wine; the person who had taken such a vow could not drink anything made from the grape, or eat grapes or raisins, not even the seeds or the skin of the grapes. Therefore, the most obvious way to interpret what we see about the Nazarite vow, is to say that Jesus had not taken a Nazarite vow.

OPTION TWO: Jesus may have been rebelling against the Human authorities of the Jews, i.e. the religious authorities.

As noted above, if a man grew his hair long, it was sign of rebellion against authority. We know He was not rebellious against God, but by having long hair, was He sending a signal that He would shake up society in a major way and turn their culture on its head? This is also a possibility. It is one I have rejected before this, but I now find the evidence of the Shroud of Turin irrefutable, so I conclude that Jesus had long hair. The question remaining is “Why”? If Jesus had not the Nazarite vow, this is the best remaining option.

Jesus was not married, so that made things a bit simpler. Paul’s discussion of this issue centered on showing respect during times of worship (which includes prayer) and showing respect in the context of the home. The fact that Jesus was not married removed the home aspect of the discussion, leaving only His personal time of worship.

We know that Jesus wore, and we can assume He used, a tallit, a prayer shawl. Therefore, Jesus did show proper respect during prayer and did so in the acceptable Jewish way. The prayer shawl was one of several ways that He showed respect for the authority of His Father, and the long hair was one way he showed contempt for the human leaders holding religious authority. The prayer shawl was a physical object that carried much spiritual significance, making it more than just a physical object. The hair was a physical thing that could express contempt for the physical authority figures, meaning the religious leaders, not the Romans.

AN ADDITIONAL OPTION

Is it possible that Jesus rewrote the rules of the Nazarite vow?  That is doubtful.