Judges 15:20

‘ And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years.'

This may indicate that he was seen as a deliverer of his people rather than that he actually exercised authority, for his final imprisonment is included in it (Judges 16:31), although he may well have exercised local authority over this period. We actually know little about his life apart from two short bursts (Judges 14-15 and Judges 16:4) and this may be intended to indicate that from now on he ruled respectably and wisely, and certainly with authority. He had given Israel back some of its pride. The Philistines probably decided to leave him alone. He was not good news for them. He judged for ‘half a generation', cut short in his prime. There is a further hint in that of what was to come.

Had Samson's life ended here he might well have been judged differently. He is often described as a loveable rogue and a trickster, but while he behaved as men do at a wedding most of the remainder of what he did was with deadly serious intent. It is noteworthy that it was only ever against Philistines (they did not see them as tricks from a loveable rogue), and it proved very effective. Whether he drank wine or not to break his vow is a matter of pure conjecture. There is no evidence for it. There is also no evidence that he actually touched the dead carcass of the lion, and the killing of the enemy would be seen as a justifiable and not as defiling. So as far as we can know his vow appeared intact until this last incident of touching the jaw bone. And even then there was always a way back if he was willing to take it.

Commentators take up many different opinions on Samson. Some see him as a wild, uncontrolled, loveable rogue who achieved little. Others recognise in him a man who was fulfilling his destiny, revealing a total devotion to Yahweh and achieving what would stand Israel in good stead, until in his latter days he faltered. In our view the latter would appear to be nearer the truth, while acknowledging some of the former. But the fact is that the writer simply gives us the bare bones. We are left to read into the gaps.